Debian package for dicom3tools
Mathieu Malaterre
dicom3tools:
http://ftp-master.debian.org/new/dicom3tools_1.0~20090716-1.html
Usually Ubuntu integrate official debian package in a matter of days.
Cheers
David Clunie
I am not glad at all.
Just to be clear, this is Mathieu's incomplete repackaging of my
tools, and any changes he has made to make it happen that I have not
incorporated in the source are not supported by me.
Also, dicom3tools are NOT licensed as BSD, but rather as a modified
BSD-like license that is included in the dicom3tools source, contrary
to what is indicated at the debian link below. If Mathieu's packaging
is GPL, as indicated, that is his business, but the toolkit as a
whole most definitely is not GPL and no contributions will be
accepted that are GPL.
Furthermore, providing a valid and unique UID root for generation
of UIDs that do not conflict with other folks requires compilation
from source, so I am not sure how Mathieu has handled this in the
binary packaging, and if he has used the default root, generated
files will be invalid, and if he has used his own root, files you
generate may clash with his or others. This is one of the primary
reasons I do not distribute compiled binaries of the complete
toolkit, and expect users to compile from source, even if it is
a pain to have to do so.
In case you can't tell, I would much rather Mathieu was not wasting
his time and mine (and potentially yours) with this debian packaging.
His motives are pure, and I greatly appreciate all his input and
suggestions for improvement, but I don't have time to support
this packaging effort properly and it is not a priority for me.
David
mathieu
On Aug 8, 12:40 pm, David Clunie <dclu...@dclunie.com> wrote:
> Hi
>
> I am not glad at all.
Neither am I ... see below
> Just to be clear, this is Mathieu's incomplete repackaging of my
> tools, and any changes he has made to make it happen that I have not
> incorporated in the source are not supported by me.
At what point did I NOT mention it to you by email ? I have not been
doing anything in your back from the begining. Everything was posted
to public mailing list, and I was CCing you on difficult cases.
> Also, dicom3tools are NOT licensed as BSD, but rather as a modified
> BSD-like license that is included in the dicom3tools source, contrary
> to what is indicated at the debian link below. If Mathieu's packaging
> is GPL, as indicated, that is his business, but the toolkit as a
> whole most definitely is not GPL and no contributions will be
> accepted that are GPL.
I do not know where you got this info from, but the link should read:
http://ftp-master.debian.org/new/dicom3tools_1.0~20090716-1.html#binary-dicom3tools-copyright
...
This package was debianized by Mathieu Malaterre
<mathieu....@gmail.com> on
Sun, 14 Dec 2008 17:28:00 +0100.
It was downloaded from http://www.dclunie.com/dicom3tools/workinprogress/
Upstream Author:
David A. Clunie dcl...@dclunie.com
Copyright:
Copyright © 1993-2006, David A. Clunie DBA PixelMed Publishing.
All rights reserved.
License:
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted under the terms of the BSD License.
THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE REGENTS AND CONTRIBUTORS ``AS
IS'' AND
ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO,
THE
IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
PURPOSE
ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE REGENTS OR CONTRIBUTORS BE
LIABLE
FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR
CONSEQUENTIAL
DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE
GOODS
OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS
INTERRUPTION)
HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN
CONTRACT, STRICT
LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN
ANY WAY
OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF
SUCH DAMAGE.
On Debian systems, the complete text of the BSD License can be
found in `/usr/share/common-licenses/BSD'.
..
The only piece of code that are GPL are the actual debian/* files that
are necessary for automatically building your software, I doubt you
actually have any intereste in them. As the main author I can always
change them to another license, such as BSD, but again I do not see
you integrating those file that are debian only.
> Furthermore, providing a valid and unique UID root for generation
> of UIDs that do not conflict with other folks requires compilation
> from source, so I am not sure how Mathieu has handled this in the
> binary packaging, and if he has used the default root, generated
> files will be invalid, and if he has used his own root, files you
> generate may clash with his or others. This is one of the primary
> reasons I do not distribute compiled binaries of the complete
> toolkit, and expect users to compile from source, even if it is
> a pain to have to do so.
If you install my package on a debian system, the entry point of the
debian documentation for this package will read:
...
What are the dicom3tools ...
See: http://www.dclunie.com/dicom3tools.html
Package details:
The package is setup so that default Root UID is 0.0.0.0. This means
that DICOM
file created will be syntaxically correct, but will be refused by
standard DICOM
implementation as this is not allowed as valid Root UID. You should
either only
use this package for validation, but not in a production site, where
produced
DICOM files are supposed to be sent to the outside world.
...
Any debian user, knows that the README.Debian is an extremely
important file to read, and AFAIK this make it clears there won't be
no collision. Let me know if you think otherwise.
> In case you can't tell, I would much rather Mathieu was not wasting
> his time and mine (and potentially yours) with this debian packaging.
> His motives are pure, and I greatly appreciate all his input and
> suggestions for improvement, but I don't have time to support
> this packaging effort properly and it is not a priority for me.
I believe I have been sending you ~dozens email about my current task,
in particular this debian packaging. I would like to know exactly why
you have been waiting I completed the work, to actually post to the
dicom newsgroup, what you could have been telling me -by private
email- a long time ago ?
Even if this not clearly indicated in the changelog of dicom3tools, I
believe I have been reporting quite a few bugs/issues in dicom3tools,
and having dicom3tools being installed naturally on my main dept
platform is extremely important for me (I have a single entry point to
managing multiple remote workstation and make sure all version are up
to date).
I am sorry to hear that, but I would have appreciated you told me that
earlier, and I am not sure what I did wrong at what point,
thanks
-Mathieu
David Clunie
mathieu wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Aug 8, 12:40 pm, David Clunie <dclu...@dclunie.com> wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> I am not glad at all.
>
> Neither am I ... see below
>
>> Just to be clear, this is Mathieu's incomplete repackaging of my
>> tools, and any changes he has made to make it happen that I have not
>> incorporated in the source are not supported by me.
>
> At what point did I NOT mention it to you by email ? I have not been
> doing anything in your back from the begining. Everything was posted
> to public mailing list, and I was CCing you on difficult cases.
Quite so, and I do not object to you doing any of this for yourself,
and I would not object to you packaging a complete release, I just
do not have the time to work on helping you complete it now, and nor
have I in the recent past.
I did not mean to imply that you had not been communicating with me;
what is a surprise is that you have released it, but you have every
right to do so and don't need my permission.
>> Also, dicom3tools are NOT licensed as BSD, but rather as a modified
>> BSD-like license that is included in the dicom3tools source, contrary
>> to what is indicated at the debian link below. If Mathieu's packaging
>> is GPL, as indicated, that is his business, but the toolkit as a
>> whole most definitely is not GPL and no contributions will be
>> accepted that are GPL.
>
> I do not know where you got this info from, but the link should read:
>
> http://ftp-master.debian.org/new/dicom3tools_1.0~20090716-1.html#binary-dicom3tools-copyright
> ...
...
> THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE REGENTS AND CONTRIBUTORS ``AS
^^^^^^^
I followed the link you sent in your posting, and following the link
above I get the same result ... the page describes the BSD license
(e.g., mentions the word REGENTS for example), and is not the text
that I included as the license in my package.
> The only piece of code that are GPL are the actual debian/* files that
> are necessary for automatically building your software, I doubt you
> actually have any intereste in them. As the main author I can always
> change them to another license, such as BSD, but again I do not see
> you integrating those file that are debian only.
I understand that, and it's fine; all I care about is in this respect
is that the information about the dicom3tools license be accurate.
>> Furthermore, providing a valid and unique UID root for generation
...
> If you install my package on a debian system, the entry point of the
> debian documentation for this package will read:
>
> ...
> What are the dicom3tools ...
>
> See: http://www.dclunie.com/dicom3tools.html
>
> Package details:
> The package is setup so that default Root UID is 0.0.0.0. This means
...
> DICOM files are supposed to be sent to the outside world.
> ...
>
> Any debian user, knows that the README.Debian is an extremely
> important file to read, and AFAIK this make it clears there won't be
> no collision. Let me know if you think otherwise.
And that I VERY strongly object to ... distributing binary files that will
always create invalid UIDs does nobody any good.
That is why in my own binary distributions for Windows and Macs I only
include utilities that dump or test or extract content, and nothing
that creates DICOM files or needs to generate UIDs for any reason.
There is absolutely no purpose in distributing those particular binaries,
they can only do bad things, nobody ever reads README files, and even if
they do may not understand what that statement actually means.
I really should modify the toolkit to actually fail if there is no
genuine root (or use a means of being rootless like in my other
toolkits, but a lot of scripts depend on the current very
old-fashioned mechanism).
>> In case you can't tell, I would much rather Mathieu was not wasting
>> his time and mine (and potentially yours) with this debian packaging.
>> His motives are pure, and I greatly appreciate all his input and
>> suggestions for improvement, but I don't have time to support
>> this packaging effort properly and it is not a priority for me.
>
> I believe I have been sending you ~dozens email about my current task,
> in particular this debian packaging. I would like to know exactly why
> you have been waiting I completed the work, to actually post to the
> dicom newsgroup, what you could have been telling me -by private
> email- a long time ago ?
Indeed you have been communicating, and mostly I have not been able
to do much in response to help, unfortunately, due to other priorities.
Now that you have publicly announced though, I needed to publicly
describe the problem you have created, since once out there, these
things can never be completely retracted.
> Even if this not clearly indicated in the changelog of dicom3tools, I
> believe I have been reporting quite a few bugs/issues in dicom3tools,
And your bug reports have been very helpful, as are everybody else's,
and I incorporate fixes for as many of them as possible, and I hope
you continue to contribute them. I have tried to be particularly
responsive to your bug reports, because they are almost always
important.
> and having dicom3tools being installed naturally on my main dept
> platform is extremely important for me (I have a single entry point to
> managing multiple remote workstation and make sure all version are up
> to date).
That's great, and hopefully you use a valid UID root for your own internal
management of this process, and not the public Debian package you have
created.
> I am sorry to hear that, but I would have appreciated you told me that
> earlier, and I am not sure what I did wrong at what point,
All I am really objecting to is your public distribution of a build
that contains files that generate illegal UIDs, with the wrong license,
and without a much clearer description of how incomplete it is.
I didn't really appreciate from your earlier emails that what you
intended was a public release, nor did I think through the implications
until you actually did it. Sorry that I didn't pay more attention (and
discourage you) earlier.
Pleas excuse my sensitivity about this, but my tools are dangerous and
unstable enough without adding to the problem !
David