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

[Mario Ceresa]

Hello Gaëtan,
please forgive me if I address you directly, but I have a question on
packaging wrapitk for Fedora.

Following the suggestions from Luis Ibanez, I'll not package neither
Patented nor Review folder to avoid licensing issues.

I might be wrong, but it seems to me that wrapitk needs Review to be
enabled in order to work.

Is it correct?

If so, is there any way I could help removing this dependency?

Thanks and regards,

Mario

2009/12/4 Mario Ceresa <mrceresa at gmail.com>:
> 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
>>>
>>
>