Fwd: [Insight-users] Fedora-RHEL packages: Status of "Patented" and "Review" directories
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Luis Ibanez <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 10:32 PM
Subject: Re: [Insight-users] Fedora-RHEL packages: Status of
"Patented" and "Review" directories
To: Mario Ceresa <email@example.com>
Thanks a lot for your efforts on packaging ITK for Fedora.
1) About the Patented directory:
It is not worth the trouble,
just exclude it.
We must get rid of it as soon as we can, anyways.
We shouldn't provide free advertisement for those
who decided to acquire 20-years monopolies for
excluding others from the use of ideas.
In fact, for some of the examples there, (the ICP,
the (20 year-long monopoly) "patent" has expired,
and the method is back in the public domain,
where it should have always been, given that
the US Congress have never authorized the
use of Patents for software. Even the
US Supreme Court made clear that only Congress
had the power for making such determination.
Not to mention that they have repeatedly clarified
that Algorithms are NOT patentable, because they
are equivalent to Mathematics and to Laws of
It has been only the misguided decisions of the
US Court of Appeals of the Federal Circuit (CAFC)
that have brought the patent system to it current
With about 170,000 software patents being awarded,
it is practically impossible to write any piece of software
without infringing on somebody else's "imaginary property".
Nobody should own Mathematics.
Hopefully, now that the Bilsky case has been ruled
in the Supreme Court
we may see some rational sense coming back to the
US Patent Office, and hopefully the CAFC will be
re-populated with more diverse Judges, as the
US National Academy of Science has recommended:
2) About the Review directory:
you must exclude it as well.
The copyright of many of the files in this directory
has not been officially transferred to the Insight
Software Consortium. Most of them have been
moved from the Insight Journal, but still the
copyright and license status is unclear.
We should focus on moving files from this
directory into the toolkit itself during the following
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 11:44 AM, Mario Ceresa <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Hello everybody,
> things move slowly on the Fedora package front but moves!
> The reviewer asked me about possible copyright issues for the Review -
> Patented folders in the ITK build tree (ver 3.16).
> We agreed not to include Patented, but I'd like to include at least
> Review in the rpm because is needed for wrapitk (If I'm not
> Does anyone know if the Review folder (or a subset of it) is
> compatible with one of these licenses?
> Thanks and regards,
> 2009/11/17 Mario Ceresa <email@example.com>:
>> Hello everybody,
>> first of all, thanks for the great work done: I've been happily using
>> both ITK and WrapITK for a while and also received a lot of help from
>> this mail list.
>> Still I'm a bit confused about the packaging status: are there any
>> prebuilt packages available for Fedora/RHEL?
>> I noticed that while there are WrapITK packages for Debian/Ubuntu,
>> there seem to be none for Fedora/RHEL.
>> Is there anyone interested in using binaries for this distributions?
>> If so, I would be more than happy to contribute back a package for the
>> two of them, or help anyone else who is working on it. Just let me
>> Thanks and regards,
> Powered by www.kitware.com
> Visit other Kitware open-source projects at
> Kitware offers ITK Training Courses, for more information visit:
> Please keep messages on-topic and check the ITK FAQ at:
> Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe:
Powered by www.kitware.com
Visit other Kitware open-source projects at
Kitware offers ITK Training Courses, for more information visit:
Please keep messages on-topic and check the ITK FAQ at:
Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe: