[Insight-users] Fedora-RHEL packages: Status of "Patented" and "Review" directories

[Mario Ceresa]

Hello Luis,

Thanks for your mail! It clarifies the whole issue a lot. I'll do as
you suggest for both the Patented and Review folder.

I'll try to contact Gaetan separately to ask him if there is a way to
use wrapitk without enabling the entire Review.

Cheers,

Mario

2009/12/2 Luis Ibanez <luis.ibanez at kitware.com>:
> Hi Mario,
>
>
> Thanks a lot for your efforts on packaging ITK for Fedora.
>
> 1) About the Patented directory:
>
>                It is not worth the trouble,
>
>                      just exclude it.
>
>
>    We must get rid of it as soon as we can, anyways.
>
>
>    We shouldn't provide free advertisement for those
>    who decided to acquire 20-years monopolies for
>    excluding others from the use of ideas.
>
>    In fact, for some of the examples there, (the ICP,
>    the (20 year-long monopoly)  "patent" has expired,
>    and the method is back in the public domain,
>    where it should have always been, given that
>    the US Congress have never authorized the
>    use of Patents for  software. Even the
>    US Supreme Court made clear that only Congress
>    had the power for making such determination.
>    Not to mention that they have repeatedly clarified
>    that Algorithms are NOT patentable, because they
>    are equivalent to Mathematics and to Laws of
>    Nature.
>
>    It has been only the misguided decisions of the
>    US Court of Appeals of the Federal Circuit (CAFC)
>    that have brought the patent system to it current
>    mess.
>
>    With about 170,000 software patents being awarded,
>    it is practically impossible to write any piece of software
>    without infringing on somebody else's "imaginary property".
>
>    Nobody should own Mathematics.
>
>    Hopefully, now that the Bilsky case has been ruled
>    in the Supreme Court
>    ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_re_Bilski)
>    we may see some rational sense coming back to the
>    US Patent Office, and hopefully the CAFC will be
>    re-populated with more diverse Judges, as the
>    US National Academy of Science has recommended:
> http://www7.nationalacademies.org/ocga/testimony/Patent_System_Overhaul.asp
>
>
>
> 2) About the Review directory:
>
>              Strictly speaking,
>              you must exclude it as well.
>
>    The copyright of many of the files in this directory
>    has not been officially transferred to the Insight
>    Software Consortium. Most of them have been
>    moved from the Insight Journal, but still the
>    copyright and license status is unclear.
>
>    We should focus on moving files from this
>    directory into the toolkit itself during the following
>    months.
>
>
>
>  Regards,
>
>
>        Luis
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 11:44 AM, Mario Ceresa <mrceresa at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hello everybody,
>> things move slowly on the Fedora package front but moves!
>> The reviewer asked me about possible copyright issues for the Review -
>> Patented folders in the ITK build tree (ver 3.16).
>>
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=539387#c6
>>
>> We agreed not to include Patented, but I'd like to include at least
>> Review in the rpm because is needed for wrapitk (If I'm not
>> mistaking).
>>
>> Does anyone know if the Review folder (or a subset of it) is
>> compatible with one of these licenses?
>>
>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#SoftwareLicenses
>>
>> Thanks and regards,
>>
>> Mario
>>
>> 2009/11/17 Mario Ceresa <mrceresa at gmail.com>:
>>> Hello everybody,
>>> first of all, thanks for the great work done: I've been happily using
>>> both ITK and WrapITK for a while and also received a lot of help from
>>> this mail list.
>>>
>>> Still I'm a bit confused about the packaging status: are there any
>>> prebuilt packages available for Fedora/RHEL?
>>> I noticed that while there are WrapITK packages for Debian/Ubuntu,
>>> there seem to be none for Fedora/RHEL.
>>>
>>> Is there anyone interested in using binaries for this distributions?
>>> If so, I would be more than happy to contribute back a package for the
>>> two of them, or help anyone else who is working on it. Just let me
>>> know!
>>>
>>> Thanks and regards,
>>>
>>> Mario
>>>
>> _____________________________________
>> Powered by www.kitware.com
>>
>> Visit other Kitware open-source projects at
>> http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html
>>
>> Kitware offers ITK Training Courses, for more information visit:
>> http://www.kitware.com/products/protraining.html
>>
>> Please keep messages on-topic and check the ITK FAQ at:
>> http://www.itk.org/Wiki/ITK_FAQ
>>
>> Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe:
>> http://www.itk.org/mailman/listinfo/insight-users
>>
>