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

[Nobuhiro Iwamatsu]

To whom it may concern.

Hi, I am Package maintainer of OpenCV in Debian [0].
I have e-mail in order to receive views on patent from you.

The Original OpenCV source code has patent issuse[1][2][3].

I already 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[4].

However, it has received a request to distribute the Debian code that
includes this patent from
the user, and wanting to provide for Debian nonfree module.
I believe it is possible to remove from the package source code that
has a problem, it does not
distribute nonfree module is correct, but IANAL.

I think I would like to have an opinion from the patent in charge of Debian.
Could you the views of the Debian and opinion?

Best regards,
  Nobuhiro

[0]: http://packages.qa.debian.org/o/opencv.html
[1]: https://github.com/Itseez/opencv/blob/master/modules/nonfree/doc/nonfree.rst
[2]: http://patentscope.wipo.int/search/ja/WO2007128452
[3]: http://www.cs.ubc.ca/~lowe/keypoints/
[4]: http://www.debian.org/legal/patent

2014/1/8 Nobuhiro Iwamatsu <iwamatsu at nigauri.org>:
> 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



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