[Debian-med-packaging] Licensing question about Insight Toolkit ( VXL / toms / ACM and non-commercial license conflict with BSD license).

Luis Ibanez luis.ibanez at kitware.com
Fri Jan 29 20:25:18 UTC 2010


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.


On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 3:08 PM, Andreas Tille <andreas at an3as.eu> 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 ?
> debian-devel at lists.debian.org
> [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

More information about the Debian-med-packaging mailing list