From: Luis I. <lui...@ki...> - 2010-01-29 17:12:12
|
Hi Oliver, Thanks a lot for pointing this out. As maintainers of the Insight Toolkit, we were not aware of the licensing status of the "toms" library. We appreciate very much that you have brought this to our attention. The "toms" library is carried by the VXL library, that in turns, is used by ITK for supporting numerics operations (i.e. linear algebra, solvers, optimizers...). As you correctly pointed out, a non-commercial license is incompatible with the BSD license used by ITK. Therefore we will be removing the toms library from the copy of VXL carried by ITK. We will do this in the following hours / days. Certainly, it will be removed before we cut the release of ITK 3.18. Please let us know if you are aware of any other piece of code that has licensing conflicts. We will be glad to address those conflicts immediately. ----- <rant> It is not the first time that we have issues with code that was taken from www.netlib.org. This web site may have serve a purpose at some time, but it doesn't fit anymore the practices of modern open source communities. The site lead users to think that it is a repository of Free and Open Source code, while in practice it is a disparate collection of software, with few or no information about copyright and licensing. I think that the large open Source community should *ban* this site due to its outdated practices and ambiguous (and finally deceptive) presentation. </rant> Regards, Luis -------------------------------------------------------------- Hello, I'm contacting the Debian-Med Packaging Team because I would to ask a question about the licence of a routine used in the insighttoolkit. I'm not a user of insighttookit and have no personal interest in that package, but I'm actually trying to package another software named eispice (http://www.thedigitalmachine.net/eispice.html) which uses the same particular routine. So I hope you can help me on that subject. Insighttoolkit incorporates third party libraries taken from the "ACM Collected Algorithms" http://www.netlib.org/toms/ My question is about one file in particular: insighttoolkit-3.16.0/Utilities/vxl/v3p/netlib/toms/rpoly.f The copyright notice as shown on http://www.netlib.org/toms/ indicates: "Use of ACM Algorithms is subject to the ACM Software Copyright and License Agreement" which is futher explained on: http://www.acm.org/publications/policies/softwarecrnotice/ >From what I understand, this licence grants the right to execute, copy, modify and distribute the code and the binary only for non-commercial use. But for commercial use, you have to get the authorisation from the authors. Considering this situation, I would like to know how you solved this licence issue concerning insighttoolkit, so that I can benefit from your experience. Kind Regards Olivier Robert |
From: Luis I. <lui...@ki...> - 2010-01-29 17:40:14
|
The offending code of the "toms" library has now been removed from the version of VXL that is distributed with the Insight Toolkit (ITK): http://www.cdash.org/CDash/viewUpdate.php?buildid=526708 The code in question was not used by ITK itself. Our Dashboard builds, after the removal are still green: http://www.cdash.org/CDash/index.php?project=Insight#Continuous The upcoming release of ITK 3.18 will represent this change. We should pursue an effort for creating a "purified" netlib web site where only code with clear licensing statements is hosted. In the meantime, we should certainly ban the use of code taken from netlib. Please do not hesitate to let us know if you find any other piece of code whose license is incompatible with ITK's license. Many Thanks Luis -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 10:24 AM, Luis Ibanez <lui...@ki...> wrote: > Hi Oliver, > > > Thanks a lot for pointing this out. > > > As maintainers of the Insight Toolkit, we were not > aware of the licensing status of the "toms" library. > > We appreciate very much that you have brought > this to our attention. > > > The "toms" library is carried by the VXL library, that > in turns, is used by ITK for supporting numerics > operations (i.e. linear algebra, solvers, optimizers...). > > > As you correctly pointed out, a non-commercial > license is incompatible with the BSD license used > by ITK. Therefore we will be removing the toms > library from the copy of VXL carried by ITK. > > We will do this in the following hours / days. > > Certainly, it will be removed > before we cut the release of ITK 3.18. > > > Please let us know if you are aware of any other > piece of code that has licensing conflicts. We will > be glad to address those conflicts immediately. > > ----- > > <rant> > > It is not the first time that we have issues with > code that was taken from www.netlib.org. > > This web site may have serve a purpose at some > time, but it doesn't fit anymore the practices of > modern open source communities. > > The site lead users to think that it is a repository > of Free and Open Source code, while in practice > it is a disparate collection of software, with few or > no information about copyright and licensing. > > I think that the large open Source community should > *ban* this site due to its outdated practices and > ambiguous (and finally deceptive) presentation. > > </rant> > > > > Regards, > > > Luis > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > Hello, > > I'm contacting the Debian-Med Packaging Team because I would to ask a > question about the licence of a routine used in the insighttoolkit. > I'm not a user of insighttookit and have no personal interest in that > package, but I'm actually trying to package another software named > eispice (http://www.thedigitalmachine.net/eispice.html) which uses the > same particular routine. > So I hope you can help me on that subject. > > Insighttoolkit incorporates third party libraries taken from the "ACM > Collected Algorithms" > http://www.netlib.org/toms/ > My question is about one file in particular: > insighttoolkit-3.16.0/Utilities/vxl/v3p/netlib/toms/rpoly.f > The copyright notice as shown on http://www.netlib.org/toms/ indicates: > "Use of ACM Algorithms is subject to the ACM Software Copyright and > License Agreement" > which is futher explained on: > http://www.acm.org/publications/policies/softwarecrnotice/ > From what I understand, this licence grants the right to execute, > copy, modify and distribute the code and the binary only for > non-commercial use. But for commercial use, you have to get the > authorisation from the authors. > > Considering this situation, I would like to know how you solved this > licence issue concerning insighttoolkit, so that I can benefit from > your experience. > > Kind Regards > > Olivier Robert > |
From: Bill L. <bil...@gm...> - 2010-01-29 18:40:41
|
Should we take it out of 3.16 also? On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 12:32 PM, Luis Ibanez <lui...@ki...> wrote: > The offending code of the "toms" library has now been > removed from the version of VXL that is distributed with > the Insight Toolkit (ITK): > > http://www.cdash.org/CDash/viewUpdate.php?buildid=526708 > > The code in question was not used by ITK itself. > > Our Dashboard builds, > after the removal are still green: > > http://www.cdash.org/CDash/index.php?project=Insight#Continuous > > The upcoming release of ITK 3.18 will represent this change. > > We should pursue an effort for creating a "purified" netlib web > site where only code with clear licensing statements is hosted. > > In the meantime, we should certainly ban the use of code taken > from netlib. > > > Please do not hesitate to let us know if you find any other > piece of code whose license is incompatible with ITK's license. > > > > Many Thanks > > > Luis > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 10:24 AM, Luis Ibanez <lui...@ki...> wrote: >> Hi Oliver, >> >> >> Thanks a lot for pointing this out. >> >> >> As maintainers of the Insight Toolkit, we were not >> aware of the licensing status of the "toms" library. >> >> We appreciate very much that you have brought >> this to our attention. >> >> >> The "toms" library is carried by the VXL library, that >> in turns, is used by ITK for supporting numerics >> operations (i.e. linear algebra, solvers, optimizers...). >> >> >> As you correctly pointed out, a non-commercial >> license is incompatible with the BSD license used >> by ITK. Therefore we will be removing the toms >> library from the copy of VXL carried by ITK. >> >> We will do this in the following hours / days. >> >> Certainly, it will be removed >> before we cut the release of ITK 3.18. >> >> >> Please let us know if you are aware of any other >> piece of code that has licensing conflicts. We will >> be glad to address those conflicts immediately. >> >> ----- >> >> <rant> >> >> It is not the first time that we have issues with >> code that was taken from www.netlib.org. >> >> This web site may have serve a purpose at some >> time, but it doesn't fit anymore the practices of >> modern open source communities. >> >> The site lead users to think that it is a repository >> of Free and Open Source code, while in practice >> it is a disparate collection of software, with few or >> no information about copyright and licensing. >> >> I think that the large open Source community should >> *ban* this site due to its outdated practices and >> ambiguous (and finally deceptive) presentation. >> >> </rant> >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> >> Luis >> >> >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------- >> Hello, >> >> I'm contacting the Debian-Med Packaging Team because I would to ask a >> question about the licence of a routine used in the insighttoolkit. >> I'm not a user of insighttookit and have no personal interest in that >> package, but I'm actually trying to package another software named >> eispice (http://www.thedigitalmachine.net/eispice.html) which uses the >> same particular routine. >> So I hope you can help me on that subject. >> >> Insighttoolkit incorporates third party libraries taken from the "ACM >> Collected Algorithms" >> http://www.netlib.org/toms/ >> My question is about one file in particular: >> insighttoolkit-3.16.0/Utilities/vxl/v3p/netlib/toms/rpoly.f >> The copyright notice as shown on http://www.netlib.org/toms/ indicates: >> "Use of ACM Algorithms is subject to the ACM Software Copyright and >> License Agreement" >> which is futher explained on: >> http://www.acm.org/publications/policies/softwarecrnotice/ >> From what I understand, this licence grants the right to execute, >> copy, modify and distribute the code and the binary only for >> non-commercial use. But for commercial use, you have to get the >> authorisation from the authors. >> >> Considering this situation, I would like to know how you solved this >> licence issue concerning insighttoolkit, so that I can benefit from >> your experience. >> >> Kind Regards >> >> Olivier Robert >> > |
From: Olivier R. <pou...@gm...> - 2010-01-29 19:03:58
|
> We should pursue an effort for creating a "purified" netlib web > site where only code with clear licensing statements is hosted. > > In the meantime, we should certainly ban the use of code taken > from netlib. Another thing to consider is that a number of these routines are already shipped as packages in debian. Examples : blas --> libblas3gf lapack --> liblapack3gf I see two interesting things in that : 1) the forensic of these packages could help to understand how to do the licencing work properly 2) it should be feasible to use these shared libraries instead of static code. I don't know if it is interesting or not. It's really an open question. (I have the same situation with another package) What are the recommandation of the debian policy? What about the performance ? Olivier On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 12:32:15 -0500 Luis Ibanez <lui...@ki...> wrote: > The offending code of the "toms" library has now been > removed from the version of VXL that is distributed with > the Insight Toolkit (ITK): > > http://www.cdash.org/CDash/viewUpdate.php?buildid=526708 > > The code in question was not used by ITK itself. > > Our Dashboard builds, > after the removal are still green: > > http://www.cdash.org/CDash/index.php?project=Insight#Continuous > > The upcoming release of ITK 3.18 will represent this change. > > We should pursue an effort for creating a "purified" netlib web > site where only code with clear licensing statements is hosted. > > In the meantime, we should certainly ban the use of code taken > from netlib. > > > Please do not hesitate to let us know if you find any other > piece of code whose license is incompatible with ITK's license. > > > > Many Thanks > > > Luis > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 10:24 AM, Luis Ibanez > <lui...@ki...> wrote: > > Hi Oliver, > > > > > > Thanks a lot for pointing this out. > > > > > > As maintainers of the Insight Toolkit, we were not > > aware of the licensing status of the "toms" library. > > > > We appreciate very much that you have brought > > this to our attention. > > > > > > The "toms" library is carried by the VXL library, that > > in turns, is used by ITK for supporting numerics > > operations (i.e. linear algebra, solvers, optimizers...). > > > > > > As you correctly pointed out, a non-commercial > > license is incompatible with the BSD license used > > by ITK. Therefore we will be removing the toms > > library from the copy of VXL carried by ITK. > > > > We will do this in the following hours / days. > > > > Certainly, it will be removed > > before we cut the release of ITK 3.18. > > > > > > Please let us know if you are aware of any other > > piece of code that has licensing conflicts. We will > > be glad to address those conflicts immediately. > > > > ----- > > > > <rant> > > > > It is not the first time that we have issues with > > code that was taken from www.netlib.org. > > > > This web site may have serve a purpose at some > > time, but it doesn't fit anymore the practices of > > modern open source communities. > > > > The site lead users to think that it is a repository > > of Free and Open Source code, while in practice > > it is a disparate collection of software, with few or > > no information about copyright and licensing. > > > > I think that the large open Source community should > > *ban* this site due to its outdated practices and > > ambiguous (and finally deceptive) presentation. > > > > </rant> > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Luis > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > Hello, > > > > I'm contacting the Debian-Med Packaging Team because I would to ask > > a question about the licence of a routine used in the > > insighttoolkit. I'm not a user of insighttookit and have no > > personal interest in that package, but I'm actually trying to > > package another software named eispice > > (http://www.thedigitalmachine.net/eispice.html) which uses the same > > particular routine. So I hope you can help me on that subject. > > > > Insighttoolkit incorporates third party libraries taken from the > > "ACM Collected Algorithms" > > http://www.netlib.org/toms/ > > My question is about one file in particular: > > insighttoolkit-3.16.0/Utilities/vxl/v3p/netlib/toms/rpoly.f > > The copyright notice as shown on http://www.netlib.org/toms/ > > indicates: "Use of ACM Algorithms is subject to the ACM Software > > Copyright and License Agreement" > > which is futher explained on: > > http://www.acm.org/publications/policies/softwarecrnotice/ > > From what I understand, this licence grants the right to execute, > > copy, modify and distribute the code and the binary only for > > non-commercial use. But for commercial use, you have to get the > > authorisation from the authors. > > > > Considering this situation, I would like to know how you solved this > > licence issue concerning insighttoolkit, so that I can benefit from > > your experience. > > > > Kind Regards > > > > Olivier Robert > > |
From: Luis I. <lui...@ki...> - 2010-01-29 18:47:50
|
Bill, We should... but then... not only from ITK 3.16... We would have to remove it from all previous ITK releases that are still downloadable... This is going to be so much fun.... :-/ We will have to patch every release back to ITK 1.0 and then regenerate the tarballs for each one of those releases. The more I think about it the more I want to gather wood and burn the netlib.org web site... Luis ------------------------------------------------ On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Bill Lorensen <bil...@gm...> wrote: > Should we take it out of 3.16 also? > > On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 12:32 PM, Luis Ibanez <lui...@ki...> wrote: >> The offending code of the "toms" library has now been >> removed from the version of VXL that is distributed with >> the Insight Toolkit (ITK): >> >> http://www.cdash.org/CDash/viewUpdate.php?buildid=526708 >> >> The code in question was not used by ITK itself. >> >> Our Dashboard builds, >> after the removal are still green: >> >> http://www.cdash.org/CDash/index.php?project=Insight#Continuous >> >> The upcoming release of ITK 3.18 will represent this change. >> >> We should pursue an effort for creating a "purified" netlib web >> site where only code with clear licensing statements is hosted. >> >> In the meantime, we should certainly ban the use of code taken >> from netlib. >> >> >> Please do not hesitate to let us know if you find any other >> piece of code whose license is incompatible with ITK's license. >> >> >> >> Many Thanks >> >> >> Luis >> >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 10:24 AM, Luis Ibanez <lui...@ki...> wrote: >>> Hi Oliver, >>> >>> >>> Thanks a lot for pointing this out. >>> >>> >>> As maintainers of the Insight Toolkit, we were not >>> aware of the licensing status of the "toms" library. >>> >>> We appreciate very much that you have brought >>> this to our attention. >>> >>> >>> The "toms" library is carried by the VXL library, that >>> in turns, is used by ITK for supporting numerics >>> operations (i.e. linear algebra, solvers, optimizers...). >>> >>> >>> As you correctly pointed out, a non-commercial >>> license is incompatible with the BSD license used >>> by ITK. Therefore we will be removing the toms >>> library from the copy of VXL carried by ITK. >>> >>> We will do this in the following hours / days. >>> >>> Certainly, it will be removed >>> before we cut the release of ITK 3.18. >>> >>> >>> Please let us know if you are aware of any other >>> piece of code that has licensing conflicts. We will >>> be glad to address those conflicts immediately. >>> >>> ----- >>> >>> <rant> >>> >>> It is not the first time that we have issues with >>> code that was taken from www.netlib.org. >>> >>> This web site may have serve a purpose at some >>> time, but it doesn't fit anymore the practices of >>> modern open source communities. >>> >>> The site lead users to think that it is a repository >>> of Free and Open Source code, while in practice >>> it is a disparate collection of software, with few or >>> no information about copyright and licensing. >>> >>> I think that the large open Source community should >>> *ban* this site due to its outdated practices and >>> ambiguous (and finally deceptive) presentation. >>> >>> </rant> >>> >>> >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> >>> Luis >>> >>> >>> >>> -------------------------------------------------------------- >>> Hello, >>> >>> I'm contacting the Debian-Med Packaging Team because I would to ask a >>> question about the licence of a routine used in the insighttoolkit. >>> I'm not a user of insighttookit and have no personal interest in that >>> package, but I'm actually trying to package another software named >>> eispice (http://www.thedigitalmachine.net/eispice.html) which uses the >>> same particular routine. >>> So I hope you can help me on that subject. >>> >>> Insighttoolkit incorporates third party libraries taken from the "ACM >>> Collected Algorithms" >>> http://www.netlib.org/toms/ >>> My question is about one file in particular: >>> insighttoolkit-3.16.0/Utilities/vxl/v3p/netlib/toms/rpoly.f >>> The copyright notice as shown on http://www.netlib.org/toms/ indicates: >>> "Use of ACM Algorithms is subject to the ACM Software Copyright and >>> License Agreement" >>> which is futher explained on: >>> http://www.acm.org/publications/policies/softwarecrnotice/ >>> From what I understand, this licence grants the right to execute, >>> copy, modify and distribute the code and the binary only for >>> non-commercial use. But for commercial use, you have to get the >>> authorisation from the authors. >>> >>> Considering this situation, I would like to know how you solved this >>> licence issue concerning insighttoolkit, so that I can benefit from >>> your experience. >>> >>> Kind Regards >>> >>> Olivier Robert >>> >> > |
From: Bill L. <bil...@gm...> - 2010-01-29 19:01:28
|
Luis, I guess what we are doing is a "good-effort". Patching the 3.16 is a "better-effort". Before 3.14 would be a "best-effort", but I think that good or better is "good enough". This does point out an issue with using 3rd part libraries. Bill On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 1:47 PM, Luis Ibanez <lui...@ki...> wrote: > Bill, > > We should... > > but then... not only from ITK 3.16... > > We would have to remove it from all previous > ITK releases that are still downloadable... > > > This is going to be so much fun.... :-/ > > > We will have to patch every release back > to ITK 1.0 and then regenerate the tarballs > for each one of those releases. > > > The more I think about it the more I want to > gather wood and burn the netlib.org web site... > > > Luis > > > ------------------------------------------------ > On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Bill Lorensen <bil...@gm...> wrote: >> Should we take it out of 3.16 also? >> >> On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 12:32 PM, Luis Ibanez <lui...@ki...> wrote: >>> The offending code of the "toms" library has now been >>> removed from the version of VXL that is distributed with >>> the Insight Toolkit (ITK): >>> >>> http://www.cdash.org/CDash/viewUpdate.php?buildid=526708 >>> >>> The code in question was not used by ITK itself. >>> >>> Our Dashboard builds, >>> after the removal are still green: >>> >>> http://www.cdash.org/CDash/index.php?project=Insight#Continuous >>> >>> The upcoming release of ITK 3.18 will represent this change. >>> >>> We should pursue an effort for creating a "purified" netlib web >>> site where only code with clear licensing statements is hosted. >>> >>> In the meantime, we should certainly ban the use of code taken >>> from netlib. >>> >>> >>> Please do not hesitate to let us know if you find any other >>> piece of code whose license is incompatible with ITK's license. >>> >>> >>> >>> Many Thanks >>> >>> >>> Luis >>> >>> >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 10:24 AM, Luis Ibanez <lui...@ki...> wrote: >>>> Hi Oliver, >>>> >>>> >>>> Thanks a lot for pointing this out. >>>> >>>> >>>> As maintainers of the Insight Toolkit, we were not >>>> aware of the licensing status of the "toms" library. >>>> >>>> We appreciate very much that you have brought >>>> this to our attention. >>>> >>>> >>>> The "toms" library is carried by the VXL library, that >>>> in turns, is used by ITK for supporting numerics >>>> operations (i.e. linear algebra, solvers, optimizers...). >>>> >>>> >>>> As you correctly pointed out, a non-commercial >>>> license is incompatible with the BSD license used >>>> by ITK. Therefore we will be removing the toms >>>> library from the copy of VXL carried by ITK. >>>> >>>> We will do this in the following hours / days. >>>> >>>> Certainly, it will be removed >>>> before we cut the release of ITK 3.18. >>>> >>>> >>>> Please let us know if you are aware of any other >>>> piece of code that has licensing conflicts. We will >>>> be glad to address those conflicts immediately. >>>> >>>> ----- >>>> >>>> <rant> >>>> >>>> It is not the first time that we have issues with >>>> code that was taken from www.netlib.org. >>>> >>>> This web site may have serve a purpose at some >>>> time, but it doesn't fit anymore the practices of >>>> modern open source communities. >>>> >>>> The site lead users to think that it is a repository >>>> of Free and Open Source code, while in practice >>>> it is a disparate collection of software, with few or >>>> no information about copyright and licensing. >>>> >>>> I think that the large open Source community should >>>> *ban* this site due to its outdated practices and >>>> ambiguous (and finally deceptive) presentation. >>>> >>>> </rant> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> >>>> Luis >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> Hello, >>>> >>>> I'm contacting the Debian-Med Packaging Team because I would to ask a >>>> question about the licence of a routine used in the insighttoolkit. >>>> I'm not a user of insighttookit and have no personal interest in that >>>> package, but I'm actually trying to package another software named >>>> eispice (http://www.thedigitalmachine.net/eispice.html) which uses the >>>> same particular routine. >>>> So I hope you can help me on that subject. >>>> >>>> Insighttoolkit incorporates third party libraries taken from the "ACM >>>> Collected Algorithms" >>>> http://www.netlib.org/toms/ >>>> My question is about one file in particular: >>>> insighttoolkit-3.16.0/Utilities/vxl/v3p/netlib/toms/rpoly.f >>>> The copyright notice as shown on http://www.netlib.org/toms/ indicates: >>>> "Use of ACM Algorithms is subject to the ACM Software Copyright and >>>> License Agreement" >>>> which is futher explained on: >>>> http://www.acm.org/publications/policies/softwarecrnotice/ >>>> From what I understand, this licence grants the right to execute, >>>> copy, modify and distribute the code and the binary only for >>>> non-commercial use. But for commercial use, you have to get the >>>> authorisation from the authors. >>>> >>>> Considering this situation, I would like to know how you solved this >>>> licence issue concerning insighttoolkit, so that I can benefit from >>>> your experience. >>>> >>>> Kind Regards >>>> >>>> Olivier Robert >>>> >>> >> > |
From: Luis I. <lui...@ki...> - 2010-01-29 19:26:51
|
Bill, That sounds very reasonable. I will patch ITK 3.16. Luis ---------------------------------------------------- On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 2:01 PM, Bill Lorensen <bil...@gm...> wrote: > Luis, > > I guess what we are doing is a "good-effort". Patching the 3.16 is a > "better-effort". Before 3.14 would be a "best-effort", but I think > that good or better is "good enough". > > This does point out an issue with using 3rd part libraries. > > Bill > > On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 1:47 PM, Luis Ibanez <lui...@ki...> wrote: >> Bill, >> >> We should... >> >> but then... not only from ITK 3.16... >> >> We would have to remove it from all previous >> ITK releases that are still downloadable... >> >> >> This is going to be so much fun.... :-/ >> >> >> We will have to patch every release back >> to ITK 1.0 and then regenerate the tarballs >> for each one of those releases. >> >> >> The more I think about it the more I want to >> gather wood and burn the netlib.org web site... >> >> >> Luis >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------ >> On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Bill Lorensen <bil...@gm...> wrote: >>> Should we take it out of 3.16 also? >>> >>> On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 12:32 PM, Luis Ibanez <lui...@ki...> wrote: >>>> The offending code of the "toms" library has now been >>>> removed from the version of VXL that is distributed with >>>> the Insight Toolkit (ITK): >>>> >>>> http://www.cdash.org/CDash/viewUpdate.php?buildid=526708 >>>> >>>> The code in question was not used by ITK itself. >>>> >>>> Our Dashboard builds, >>>> after the removal are still green: >>>> >>>> http://www.cdash.org/CDash/index.php?project=Insight#Continuous >>>> >>>> The upcoming release of ITK 3.18 will represent this change. >>>> >>>> We should pursue an effort for creating a "purified" netlib web >>>> site where only code with clear licensing statements is hosted. >>>> >>>> In the meantime, we should certainly ban the use of code taken >>>> from netlib. >>>> >>>> >>>> Please do not hesitate to let us know if you find any other >>>> piece of code whose license is incompatible with ITK's license. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Many Thanks >>>> >>>> >>>> Luis >>>> >>>> >>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 10:24 AM, Luis Ibanez <lui...@ki...> wrote: >>>>> Hi Oliver, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks a lot for pointing this out. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> As maintainers of the Insight Toolkit, we were not >>>>> aware of the licensing status of the "toms" library. >>>>> >>>>> We appreciate very much that you have brought >>>>> this to our attention. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The "toms" library is carried by the VXL library, that >>>>> in turns, is used by ITK for supporting numerics >>>>> operations (i.e. linear algebra, solvers, optimizers...). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> As you correctly pointed out, a non-commercial >>>>> license is incompatible with the BSD license used >>>>> by ITK. Therefore we will be removing the toms >>>>> library from the copy of VXL carried by ITK. >>>>> >>>>> We will do this in the following hours / days. >>>>> >>>>> Certainly, it will be removed >>>>> before we cut the release of ITK 3.18. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Please let us know if you are aware of any other >>>>> piece of code that has licensing conflicts. We will >>>>> be glad to address those conflicts immediately. >>>>> >>>>> ----- >>>>> >>>>> <rant> >>>>> >>>>> It is not the first time that we have issues with >>>>> code that was taken from www.netlib.org. >>>>> >>>>> This web site may have serve a purpose at some >>>>> time, but it doesn't fit anymore the practices of >>>>> modern open source communities. >>>>> >>>>> The site lead users to think that it is a repository >>>>> of Free and Open Source code, while in practice >>>>> it is a disparate collection of software, with few or >>>>> no information about copyright and licensing. >>>>> >>>>> I think that the large open Source community should >>>>> *ban* this site due to its outdated practices and >>>>> ambiguous (and finally deceptive) presentation. >>>>> >>>>> </rant> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Luis >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> Hello, >>>>> >>>>> I'm contacting the Debian-Med Packaging Team because I would to ask a >>>>> question about the licence of a routine used in the insighttoolkit. >>>>> I'm not a user of insighttookit and have no personal interest in that >>>>> package, but I'm actually trying to package another software named >>>>> eispice (http://www.thedigitalmachine.net/eispice.html) which uses the >>>>> same particular routine. >>>>> So I hope you can help me on that subject. >>>>> >>>>> Insighttoolkit incorporates third party libraries taken from the "ACM >>>>> Collected Algorithms" >>>>> http://www.netlib.org/toms/ >>>>> My question is about one file in particular: >>>>> insighttoolkit-3.16.0/Utilities/vxl/v3p/netlib/toms/rpoly.f >>>>> The copyright notice as shown on http://www.netlib.org/toms/ indicates: >>>>> "Use of ACM Algorithms is subject to the ACM Software Copyright and >>>>> License Agreement" >>>>> which is futher explained on: >>>>> http://www.acm.org/publications/policies/softwarecrnotice/ >>>>> From what I understand, this licence grants the right to execute, >>>>> copy, modify and distribute the code and the binary only for >>>>> non-commercial use. But for commercial use, you have to get the >>>>> authorisation from the authors. >>>>> >>>>> Considering this situation, I would like to know how you solved this >>>>> licence issue concerning insighttoolkit, so that I can benefit from >>>>> your experience. >>>>> >>>>> Kind Regards >>>>> >>>>> Olivier Robert >>>>> >>>> >>> >> > |
From: Luis I. <lui...@ki...> - 2010-01-29 19:29:07
|
Olivier, You bring up a good point, We probably should ask for advice to the packagers of these other libraries. What is the standard channel for contacting Debian packager maintainers ? Thanks Luis ---------------------------------------------------------------- On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 2:03 PM, Olivier Robert <pou...@gm...> wrote: >> We should pursue an effort for creating a "purified" netlib web >> site where only code with clear licensing statements is hosted. >> >> In the meantime, we should certainly ban the use of code taken >> from netlib. > > Another thing to consider is that a number of these routines are already shipped as packages in debian. > Examples : > > blas --> libblas3gf > lapack --> liblapack3gf > > I see two interesting things in that : > > 1) the forensic of these packages could help to understand how to do the licencing work properly > 2) it should be feasible to use these shared libraries instead of static code. > I don't know if it is interesting or not. It's really an open question. (I have the same situation with another package) > What are the recommandation of the debian policy? What about the performance ? > > > Olivier > > > > > On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 12:32:15 -0500 > Luis Ibanez <lui...@ki...> wrote: > >> The offending code of the "toms" library has now been >> removed from the version of VXL that is distributed with >> the Insight Toolkit (ITK): >> >> http://www.cdash.org/CDash/viewUpdate.php?buildid=526708 >> >> The code in question was not used by ITK itself. >> >> Our Dashboard builds, >> after the removal are still green: >> >> http://www.cdash.org/CDash/index.php?project=Insight#Continuous >> >> The upcoming release of ITK 3.18 will represent this change. >> >> We should pursue an effort for creating a "purified" netlib web >> site where only code with clear licensing statements is hosted. >> >> In the meantime, we should certainly ban the use of code taken >> from netlib. >> >> >> Please do not hesitate to let us know if you find any other >> piece of code whose license is incompatible with ITK's license. >> >> >> >> Many Thanks >> >> >> Luis >> >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 10:24 AM, Luis Ibanez >> <lui...@ki...> wrote: >> > Hi Oliver, >> > >> > >> > Thanks a lot for pointing this out. >> > >> > >> > As maintainers of the Insight Toolkit, we were not >> > aware of the licensing status of the "toms" library. >> > >> > We appreciate very much that you have brought >> > this to our attention. >> > >> > >> > The "toms" library is carried by the VXL library, that >> > in turns, is used by ITK for supporting numerics >> > operations (i.e. linear algebra, solvers, optimizers...). >> > >> > >> > As you correctly pointed out, a non-commercial >> > license is incompatible with the BSD license used >> > by ITK. Therefore we will be removing the toms >> > library from the copy of VXL carried by ITK. >> > >> > We will do this in the following hours / days. >> > >> > Certainly, it will be removed >> > before we cut the release of ITK 3.18. >> > >> > >> > Please let us know if you are aware of any other >> > piece of code that has licensing conflicts. We will >> > be glad to address those conflicts immediately. >> > >> > ----- >> > >> > <rant> >> > >> > It is not the first time that we have issues with >> > code that was taken from www.netlib.org. >> > >> > This web site may have serve a purpose at some >> > time, but it doesn't fit anymore the practices of >> > modern open source communities. >> > >> > The site lead users to think that it is a repository >> > of Free and Open Source code, while in practice >> > it is a disparate collection of software, with few or >> > no information about copyright and licensing. >> > >> > I think that the large open Source community should >> > *ban* this site due to its outdated practices and >> > ambiguous (and finally deceptive) presentation. >> > >> > </rant> >> > >> > >> > >> > Regards, >> > >> > >> > Luis >> > >> > >> > >> > -------------------------------------------------------------- >> > Hello, >> > >> > I'm contacting the Debian-Med Packaging Team because I would to ask >> > a question about the licence of a routine used in the >> > insighttoolkit. I'm not a user of insighttookit and have no >> > personal interest in that package, but I'm actually trying to >> > package another software named eispice >> > (http://www.thedigitalmachine.net/eispice.html) which uses the same >> > particular routine. So I hope you can help me on that subject. >> > >> > Insighttoolkit incorporates third party libraries taken from the >> > "ACM Collected Algorithms" >> > http://www.netlib.org/toms/ >> > My question is about one file in particular: >> > insighttoolkit-3.16.0/Utilities/vxl/v3p/netlib/toms/rpoly.f >> > The copyright notice as shown on http://www.netlib.org/toms/ >> > indicates: "Use of ACM Algorithms is subject to the ACM Software >> > Copyright and License Agreement" >> > which is futher explained on: >> > http://www.acm.org/publications/policies/softwarecrnotice/ >> > From what I understand, this licence grants the right to execute, >> > copy, modify and distribute the code and the binary only for >> > non-commercial use. But for commercial use, you have to get the >> > authorisation from the authors. >> > >> > Considering this situation, I would like to know how you solved this >> > licence issue concerning insighttoolkit, so that I can benefit from >> > your experience. >> > >> > Kind Regards >> > >> > Olivier Robert >> > > |
From: Andreas T. <an...@an...> - 2010-01-29 20:43:12
|
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 02:29:00PM -0500, Luis Ibanez wrote: > You bring up a good point, > > We probably should ask for advice to the > packagers of these other libraries. > > What is the standard channel for contacting > Debian packager maintainers ? deb...@li... [Posting a link to the start of this thread might make sense.] > > 1) the forensic of these packages could help to understand how to do the licencing work properly > > 2) it should be feasible to use these shared libraries instead of static code. > > I don't know if it is interesting or not. It's really an open question. (I have the same situation with another package) > > What are the recommandation of the debian policy? What about the performance ? I would by all means recommend to have library code shared between different programs packaged as dynamic libraries. Thanks for the effort to clean up the code base Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de |
From: Luis I. <lui...@ki...> - 2010-01-29 20:25:27
|
Andreas, We fully agree on reusing libraries, and we love to do it whenever we can. However, in our case, we manage a toolkit that is expected to be used in many platforms, not only Linux, but also Windows, Macs and SunOS. That tends to be the reason why we carry along with the toolkit a set of third party libraries that are essential. I believe, that when packaged for Linux, ITK is then configured to use the libraries that are available in the system (i.e. png, tiff, jpeg, zlib). We probably should look at options for extending this type of configuration to the numerical libraries. Luis ------------------------------------------------------------------ On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 3:08 PM, Andreas Tille <an...@an...> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 02:29:00PM -0500, Luis Ibanez wrote: >> You bring up a good point, >> >> We probably should ask for advice to the >> packagers of these other libraries. >> >> What is the standard channel for contacting >> Debian packager maintainers ? > > deb...@li... > [Posting a link to the start of this thread might make sense.] > >> > 1) the forensic of these packages could help to understand how to do the licencing work properly >> > 2) it should be feasible to use these shared libraries instead of static code. >> > I don't know if it is interesting or not. It's really an open question. (I have the same situation with another package) >> > What are the recommandation of the debian policy? What about the performance ? > > I would by all means recommend to have library code shared between > different programs packaged as dynamic libraries. > > Thanks for the effort to clean up the code base > > Andreas. > > -- > http://fam-tille.de > |
From: Stephen A. <ste...@ki...> - 2010-01-29 21:09:01
|
Early in the ITK development process we decided that the cost of being math-library-agnostic was too high - stunted ability to exploit the power of VXL, potentially increased code complexity and run-time, ... We'd need to revisit several big issues before considering such a change...not saying that we shouldn't consider it, but... s On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 3:25 PM, Luis Ibanez <lui...@ki...> wrote: > Andreas, > > We fully agree on reusing libraries, and we love > to do it whenever we can. > > However, in our case, we manage a toolkit that is > expected to be used in many platforms, not only > Linux, but also Windows, Macs and SunOS. > > That tends to be the reason why we carry along > with the toolkit a set of third party libraries that > are essential. > > I believe, that when packaged for Linux, ITK is > then configured to use the libraries that are > available in the system (i.e. png, tiff, jpeg, zlib). > > We probably should look at options for extending > this type of configuration to the numerical libraries. > > > Luis > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 3:08 PM, Andreas Tille <an...@an...> wrote: >> On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 02:29:00PM -0500, Luis Ibanez wrote: >>> You bring up a good point, >>> >>> We probably should ask for advice to the >>> packagers of these other libraries. >>> >>> What is the standard channel for contacting >>> Debian packager maintainers ? >> >> deb...@li... >> [Posting a link to the start of this thread might make sense.] >> >>> > 1) the forensic of these packages could help to understand how to do the licencing work properly >>> > 2) it should be feasible to use these shared libraries instead of static code. >>> > I don't know if it is interesting or not. It's really an open question. (I have the same situation with another package) >>> > What are the recommandation of the debian policy? What about the performance ? >> >> I would by all means recommend to have library code shared between >> different programs packaged as dynamic libraries. >> >> Thanks for the effort to clean up the code base >> >> Andreas. >> >> -- >> http://fam-tille.de >> > -- Stephen R. Aylward, Ph.D. Director of Medical Imaging Research Kitware, Inc. - North Carolina Office http://www.kitware.com stephen.aylward (Skype) (919) 969-6990 x300 |