Hello,
> unfortunately, the Debian OpenCV packages don't provide the SIFT and
> SURF modules.
>
> It seems like these modules were outsourced into a nonfree module, and
> need to be enabled explicitely at build time with cmake flag
> "-DBUILD_opencv_nonfree=ON".
>
> I didn't check the license of these modules, but as long as it's
> possible to distribute them in non-free, I suggest to build them (or at
> least make it easy to enable them at build time by simple flag in
> debian/rules).
I understand that the processing speed of OpenCV can be improved by
using a nonfree module. And, I also understand that many users want to
use this module.
I think you also know that, because it contains the problem of patent,
I have been removed from the source code in Debian this module.
I do not know whether there is a need to remove the source code, but
think of safety, I am that you do not distribute the source code in
Debian.
http://www.cs.ubc.ca/~lowe/keypoints/
You can see from the following information about the patent which is
for Debian.
http://www.debian.org/legal/patent
http://www.debian.org/reports/patent-faq.en.html
Was it your decision to remove the patent-protected modules from OpenCV
Debian source package? Did you discuss this step with laywers before?
I'm not a lawyer and I'm not position to evaluate the scope of the
patent in question. But I've a slightly different point of view. In
particular, I don't think that patent issues should be treated with
anticipatory obedience (no offense intended here). Most patents are only
valid in specific countries anyway, or they're not enforced at all.
Do you know of any cases where the SIFT patent has been enforced by the
patent holder?
To my knowledge, software distributed in Debian packages violates
several patents.
Also, I understand the Community Patent FAQ in a way that it doesn't
suggest to not distribute patent-protected software at all. In
particular, source code distribution shouldn't be a problem at all.
Actually, it's not clear yet from a legal point of view, whether
sourcecode distribution violates patents at all. FLOSS laywers say it
doesn't. See section "I have heard that distributing source code is
safer than distributing object code. Is that true?" in the FAQ.
Last but not least, the patent in question is hold by a US university. I
guess chances that they try to enforce the patent against open source
projects i rather low. Maybe one should ask them explicitely?
I suggest to discuss this issue with [email protected]
Kind regards,
jonas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
