How do you get around the legal issues? Copyright holders, patents, etc.?

[JimC]

It's my understanding that there are patent issues that prevent the
adoption of jpeg 2000 in open source applicatioins, based on what I've
read in entries like this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG_2000#Legal_issues

So, if the algorithms are not open source, how can this project work?

Please educate me.

Thanks.

[JimC]

I see that the wikepedia entry about JPEG 2000 legal issues has been
edited since my question was posted here.

It did have notes on why it would not be adopted in open source
applications (even specifically mentioning examples like browsers
using the Gecko engine since that code is open source).

Now, it's been updated to say that it meets the "acid test", using
Debian as an example, with the text removed about not being able to
include JPEG 2000 in open source applications. Although, I think the
edit was done hastily since it reads this way right this minute: "It
complains with the Debian Free Software Guidelines (the acid test of
software freedom)." I think that was meant to be complies versus
complains. lol

So, what's the real deal here? Is it free of legal issues or not?
Why was the wikipedia entry wrong to begin with?

[Paul TBBle Hampson]

On Wed, May 02, 2007 at 08:08:05PM -0000, JimC wrote:
> I see that the wikepedia entry about JPEG 2000 legal issues has been
> edited since my question was posted here.

[...]

> So, what's the real deal here? Is it free of legal issues or not?
> Why was the wikipedia entry wrong to begin with?

I just flicked through the history, and it's a pretty bizarre entry.

In summary, there's a JPEG-2000 implementation in Debian (JasPer).

That implementation meets the DFSG, which some people (I count myself
amongst them, but acknowledge the existence of differing points of view)
consider a fairly definitive set of guidelines for whether something is
Free Software.

However, the DFSG does not specifically address patents itself, and the
general stance taken by Debian Developers is that due to the
cross-jurisdictional differences in patent law, unless a patent is being
actively enforced it's not a DFSG-freeness issue.

JPEG2000 isn't really an issue for DFSG-freeness or not, implementations
of JPEG2000 are considered on their own DFSG-freeness. (eg. kakadu is
obviously not DFSG-free)

The fact that the Wikipedia article suggests that patents related to
JPEG2000 part 1 is intended to be freely usable by all is nicely
reassuring to me, since I've put up my hand to say that openjpeg is
DFSG-free too, and acceptable to the archive. [1]

[1] http://mentors.debian.net/cgi-bin/sponsor-pkglist?action=details;package=openjpeg

--
-----------------------------------------------------------
Paul "TBBle" Hampson, B.Sc, LPI, MCSE
On-hiatus Asian Studies student, ANU
The Boss, Bubblesworth Pty Ltd (ABN: 51 095 284 361)
Paul.H...@Pobox.Com

Of course Pacman didn't influence us as kids. If it did,
we'd be running around in darkened rooms, popping pills and
listening to repetitive music.
-- Kristian Wilson, Nintendo, Inc, 1989

License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.1/au/
-----------------------------------------------------------