Bug#734373: OpenCV: please build SIFT and SURF modules

[Nobuhiro Iwamatsu]

Hi,

Thanks for your comment.

2014/1/7 Jonas Meurer <jonas at freesources.org>:
> 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?
>

No, I didn't. I removed the non-free code based on the Policy
Statement section 1
(Debian will not knowingly distribute software encumbered by patents;
Debian contributors
 should not package or distribute software they know to infringe a patent.)
of Debian Position on Software Patents.

> 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.
>

To my knowledge, this seems to have been filed in international patent.
  http://patentscope.wipo.int/search/ja/WO2007128452

> Do you know of any cases where the SIFT patent has been enforced by the
> patent holder?
>

No. I don' t know.
I'm thinking patent infringement and it is a thing to prevent in advance.
And there is likely to be appealed to the patent holder to Debian.

> 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.

Yes. But IANAL, I have been working on the basis of this document.

>
> 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 patents at debian.org

Yes, I will discuss this. Thanks!

>
> Kind regards,
>  jonas
>

Best regards,
  Nobuhiro

-- 
Nobuhiro Iwamatsu
   iwamatsu at {nigauri.org / debian.org}
   GPG ID: 40AD1FA6