Moral questions
DaveN
software company doesn't tell you what the function is but it sure
seems to operate like SIFT). SIFT is patented however that patent is
largely ignored on the grounds that such patents don't apply in all
parts of the world. The current downloads for Hugin barely mention
the patent issue.
Copyrights are also largely ignored in some parts of the world. Using
the same logic as above, is it ok for someone in one of the parts of
the world that largely ignore copyrights to repackage a version of
Hugin and sell it as their own worldwide? Would it be ok if they did
so and only casually mentioned to the buyer to check their local laws
for any issues that may concern them locally?
If someone makes a commercial image from Hugin using a SIFT control
point generator and then posts the stitched image on the Internet and
someone copies it, is that ok?
I'll duck now.
ArAgost
issues with the software, the intellectual property of the image is
completely separate.
DaveN
create an image infringing on a patent, can you in all honesty be
outraged if someone infringes on your rights to your image?
bruno.postle
--
Bruno
tennevin.yves
The Berne convention can still be applied, what ever the licence you
choose for your image.
And to DaveN comment, I ain't infringing any patent while located in
Europe, so the moralistic opinion is bogus, but copyright laws can still
be applied in Europe.
--
Yves Tennevin / esby <dot> free.fr
http://esby.free.fr/contact.html
DaveN
in those places copy your images or repackage Hugin?
Bruno: Where is the other place to discuss Hugin where I can find
answers?
Dale Beams
In the US, fansubs, ie people subbing japanese anime and other foriegn movies traditionally have been ignored in part because the content had not yet been copyrighted in the US. Recently international trade agreements have changed that. Now anime produced in Japan is copyrighted at it's inception just as copyrighted products in the US are. I'm sure China falls under these copyright restrictions as well, even if it's not enforced.
(as i've understood it)
There has never been a restriction on re-packaging GPL software as far as I recall (other licenses need to be checked). For example there is a great GPL desktop publishing software that could be packaged as well, and sold as any other retail product. However, all GPL software REQUIRES you to notify the user of the GPL license, prohibits you from removing the GPL license notification and provide them with an option to obtain the source code.
(as i've understood it)
Patents, copyrights, & trademarks still require the company whose rights are being infringed on to bring the lawsuit to court. This may be changing soon in the US, as major media companies are trying to make copyright/patent/trademark infringement a criminal rather than a civil matter.
In regards to products produced from using Hugin in conjunction with patented products, doesn't invalidate the copyright of the produced work.
For example, as an artist, should I use a brand of paint or chalk for a masterpiece, and there was a patented ingredient in the paint, the paint would not invalidate my copyright.
Copyright is there to protect the artist creation. Patents are there to protect the inventors cash flow.
This is why it's important to read the copyright. There is copyleft, creative commons, gpl, etc.
On a side note, I build my Hugin from scratch, so I'm not aware if Hugin currently ships with either the SIFT or the SURF program included in binary form or as part of the package or if it requires the user to download separately those programs. I would assume it requires the user to make a moral decision on downloading either of those two patented products.
If I recall correctly one can do control point matching by hand.
> Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 17:08:16 -0800
> Subject: [hugin-ptx] Re: Moral questions
> From: tahoed...@yahoo.com
> To: hugi...@googlegroups.com
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "hugin and other free panoramic software" group.
> A list of frequently asked questions is available at: http://wiki.panotools.org/Hugin_FAQ
> To post to this group, send email to hugi...@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to hugin-ptx+...@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/hugin-ptx
Hotmail: Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft. Get it now.
Carl von Einem
DaveN schrieb am 18.12.09 02:08:
DaveN
generators in the download. I believe you are correct that China
technically does have copyright laws but they are rarely enforced as
you note. For all practical purposes, there is no patent or copyright
protection in China.
I am not sure you are right about the status of copyrighted works
created with infringed works. I think there have been cases where the
produced work has had to pay the owner of the patent. I am not an
attorney but I think that is often use the threat of lawsuits in such
cases to get money (iPix comes to mind).
As far as copyright protection the artist's creation and a patent
protecting the inventor's cash flow. It is also true the copyright
protection protects the artist's cash flow and patents protect the
inventor's invention.
Yes you can do the control point matching by hand but I don't think
that happens in most cases any more.
On Dec 17, 5:54 pm, Dale Beams <drbe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> An interesting post.
>
> In the US, fansubs, ie people subbing japanese anime and other foriegn movies traditionally have been ignored in part because the content had not yet been copyrighted in the US. Recently international trade agreements have changed that. Now anime produced in Japan is copyrighted at it's inception just as copyrighted products in the US are. I'm sure China falls under these copyright restrictions as well, even if it's not enforced.
>
> (as i've understood it)
>
> There has never been a restriction on re-packaging GPL software as far as I recall (other licenses need to be checked). For example there is a great GPL desktop publishing software that could be packaged as well, and sold as any other retail product. However, all GPL software REQUIRES you to notify the user of the GPL license, prohibits you from removing the GPL license notification and provide them with an option to obtain the source code.
>
> (as i've understood it)
>
> Patents, copyrights, & trademarks still require the company whose rights are being infringed on to bring the lawsuit to court. This may be changing soon in the US, as major media companies are trying to make copyright/patent/trademark infringement a criminal rather than a civil matter.
>
> In regards to products produced from using Hugin in conjunction with patented products, doesn't invalidate the copyright of the produced work.
>
> For example, as an artist, should I use a brand of paint or chalk for a masterpiece, and there was a patented ingredient in the paint, the paint would not invalidate my copyright.
>
> Copyright is there to protect the artist creation. Patents are there to protect the inventors cash flow.
>
> This is why it's important to read the copyright. There is copyleft, creative commons, gpl, etc.
>
> On a side note, I build my Hugin from scratch, so I'm not aware if Hugin currently ships with either the SIFT or the SURF program included in binary form or as part of the package or if it requires the user to download separately those programs. I would assume it requires the user to make a moral decision on downloading either of those two patented products.
>
> If I recall correctly one can do control point matching by hand.
>
>
>
> > Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 17:08:16 -0800
> > Subject: [hugin-ptx] Re: Moral questions
> > From: tahoedave...@yahoo.com
> _________________________________________________________________
> Hotmail: Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft.http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/171222986/direct/01/
Dale Beams
Panoramic photos would not have a patent, or if it did would be defeated by prior art.
A methodology might be considered patentable, but then you would have to pursue the patent infringer, in the case, ie, SIFT or SURF provided they followed the patent to the letter.
In regards to ipix, they attempted to sue photographers, and then got sued themselves and lost to Pictosphere.
ipix patent arguements were to broad, and prior art was used in court by defendants of their lawsuits.
>
> I am not sure you are right about the status of copyrighted works
> created with infringed works. I think there have been cases where the
> produced work has had to pay the owner of the patent. I am not an
> attorney but I think that is often use the threat of lawsuits in such
> cases to get money (iPix comes to mind).
Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now.
DaveN
have been around for some time.
I don't understand your second statement.
With regards to iPiX and Photosphere, that was interesting. iPiX did
sue photographers then were sued and settled with Pictosphere. iPiX
then licensed Pictosphere's patent, went bankrupt and Pictosphere
bought much of iPiX's remains. Now if you go to ipix.com, you get a
page describing the virtues of Oxaal's patent portfolio. It is all a
big mess.
> _________________________________________________________________
> Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection.http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/177141665/direct/01/
tennevin.yves
Free / nonfree software can be pirated everywhere in the world, what
ever the local laws allowing this or not.
Using an illegal copy of a software, being photoshop, hugin, windows or
God know what is usually the user's responsability.
For the materials producted by the those illegaly packaged software,
they are usually legit.
That does not mean the one using them risk nothing.
It just means the copyright status of such medias is unrelated to how
they were created.
JeCh
algorithm? A don't think it should be patentable and so does the rest
of the world except of USA and maybe Japan. Imagine someone patented
Fourrier transformation...
If I use Hugin and SIFT based control point generators, I'm not
breaking any law and I don't do anything immoral.
In fact the patent law is mainly used to slow down invention and
evolution. Except of making less things patentable and for shorter
time, some countries are going the other way we may see soon someone
who will receive a patent for air breathing.
DaveN
method for doing something. If it weren't so novel or original, then
why didn't someone think of it earlier? It seems most people on this
list think that their creations should be protected but the novel
thinking of others is meaningless. That seems to be quite self-
serving IMHO. You choose to follow the laws that suit you, ignore the
rest then expect others to follow the rules.
DaveN
they are usually legit. >>
Which brings me back to my original point. If you knowingly use
illegally package software to create a work, do you have a moral right
to be outraged if your work is stolen?
DaveN
a method to do the same using a different method but other than SIFT
and SURF, there doesn't appear to be progress in that area. Sure
there are Harris Corners but SIFT and SURF are much better methods.
Regardless, I seem to be beating a dead horse here. It is clear the
feeling here, IMHO, is 'I follow the rules I see fit, ignore the ones
I don't see as fit, and have no issue in expecting that my work will
not be infringed upon.'
Daniel Reetz
Yes.
DaveN
I don't see as fit, and have no issue in expecting that my work will
not be infringed upon.
Dale Beams
One could even claim that Micheangelo's painting of the sistine chapel was a panoramic of heaven as he saw it, where he was the nodal point.
Again, not a novel idea, but prior art.
Anytime software is an extension of real world principles and does not introduce a new idea, it's not novel.
Imagine if Galieo tried to patent gravity. We'd all be left hanging in the wind so to speak. Galieo didn't discover gravity, he recognized it. The same as any 3 year old child who stumble and falls on his face does.
> Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 06:55:32 -0800
> Subject: [hugin-ptx] Re: Moral questions
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "hugin and other free panoramic software" group.
> A list of frequently asked questions is available at: http://wiki.panotools.org/Hugin_FAQ
> To post to this group, send email to hugi...@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to hugin-ptx+...@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/hugin-ptx
Harry van der Wolf
The Mac version of Hugin does include the auto control point
generators in the download. I believe you are correct that China
technically does have copyright laws but they are rarely enforced as
you note. For all practical purposes, there is no patent or copyright
protection in China.
Just for complete reference to both Mac and non-Mac users:
The 2009.2 was the first to include the AutoCP generators but NOT inside Hugin. They are delivered with the package as separate packages.
Technically speaking: the MacOSX .dmg that is downloaded is NOT a package, but the official MacOSX disk image format, like .iso or .nrg or whatever other formats exist. Like any CD distributed with many magazines containing lots and lots of software. That's not different.
Did you write to all those magazines as well?
When installing AutoCP generators on MacOSX, they are still NOT inside the Hugin packages but installed elsewhere.
The separate packes are in a separate Folder "on the CD" and come with a Readme when and where you can use them.
Inside the packages you will find again the Readme.
Referring to China or any other country is completely irrelevant. Software and "other stuff" is pirated everywhere, no matter whether it is Open source, free or commercial closed source via bittorrent's or else.
Harry
Bart van Andel
> Regardless, I seem to be beating a dead horse here. It is clear the
> feeling here, IMHO, is 'I follow the rules I see fit, ignore the ones
> I don't see as fit, and have no issue in expecting that my work will
> not be infringed upon.'
Luckily, that's just your opinion.
But I wonder, why are you asking about these patent and/or copyrighy
infringement issues? To me, at first, it was like you are planning to
release a derivative of Hugin yourself, but apparently I was wrong
(which is good). Did you spot a Hugin rip-off somewhere?
--
Bart
Daniel Reetz
> 'I follow the rules I see fit, ignore the ones
> I don't see as fit, and have no issue in expecting that my work will
> not be infringed upon.
Repeating your argument doesn't make it any less off-topic. Neither
does making up a straw-man.
DR
DaveN
infringement issues?>>
It is something that has been bothering me for a long time and never
really has been discussed in the open. To me, the inventor of the
SIFT algorithm deserves some benefit for his work but isn't really
getting it. Sure SIFT has his University's approval for use in non-
commercial work but that seems to be taken by many a bit liberally.
<< To me, at first, it was like you are planning to
release a derivative of Hugin yourself, but apparently I was wrong
(which is good). Did you spot a Hugin rip-off somewhere? >>
You are right in that I have no plans on releasing a derivative of
Hugin and I don't know of any Hugin rip-offs. I have been evaluating
options for Mac 10.6 and it looks like Autopano Pro is my only
alternative if I want to use SIFT.
Dale Beams
It appears that SURF is closed source as well, but there appears to be an "OpenSURF".
This would be an interesting research topic. One of Hugin's goals is to produce it's own auto cp detector or use a GPL version of one.
Drop a note back on SURF. I'm interested in knowing what you find.
> Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 09:20:46 -0800
> Subject: [hugin-ptx] Re: Moral questions
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "hugin and other free panoramic software" group.
> A list of frequently asked questions is available at: http://wiki.panotools.org/Hugin_FAQ
> To post to this group, send email to hugi...@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to hugin-ptx+...@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/hugin-ptx
Lukáš Jirkovský
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "hugin and other free panoramic software" group.
> A list of frequently asked questions is available at: http://wiki.panotools.org/Hugin_FAQ
> To post to this group, send email to hugi...@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to hugin-ptx+...@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/hugin-ptx
Hi Dave,
I think that the problem is your attitude to patents and what you
thing they are. Moreover you are messing patent law and copyright law
which are two completely different things.
What are you talking about here are software patents which are only
useless crap. Why? The greatest flaw of software patents is that you
can't describe very well what software patent is and what is not.
Actually, anything could become software patent. Numbers on the bottom
pages in books etc.
But to my point. The original purpose of patents was to encourage
companies to develop new things and thus shift technology towards.
This is certainly good thing but it can be used only in some specific
industries like chemical industry or medicine. I'll try to explain it
better. When you are developing new cure for cancer it costs you
millions of dollars, because you have to pay researchers, medical
testing and still 99% of your work is in vain. And when you would find
the desired cure, any small factory could copy it and sell it much
cheaper and the company which invented it would end up in red numbers.
Patents are here to allow the company which invents new pills to have
monopoly for some time.
But what about software? Quite a lot of algorithms are invented by
bored students. Does it cost that much? And even if it would, do you
really think they have money to pay for patent? It could result (and
I'm pretty sure it happens) that some company apply for the patent
which was invented by someone else. And even if I knew that the idea
origins to someone else I could barely do anything, because no casual
people have enough money to pay dozens of the best lawyers.
And what is even bigger problem - time. For some slowly moving
industry 20 years (just example) are not that much and the
chemical/whatewer would be still useful. But for software even a year
may be too long. Image someone would patent quicksort or worse using
"for" loops. The software industry would be stalled at one point for
several years.
have a nice day,
Lukas
DaveN
implementation that is copyrighted. I don't know for sure. It would
be nice to see a patent-free control generator for Hugin though. I am
not a programmer so I wouldn't be much help. Here is the wiki page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SURF
but you may have that already.
On Dec 18, 9:41 am, Dale Beams <drbe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On that note, have you considered the SURF algorithm?
>
> It appears that SURF is closed source as well, but there appears to be an "OpenSURF".
>
> This would be an interesting research topic. One of Hugin's goals is to produce it's own auto cp detector or use a GPL version of one.
>
> Drop a note back on SURF. I'm interested in knowing what you find.
>
>
>
> > Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 09:20:46 -0800
> > Subject: [hugin-ptx] Re: Moral questions
> > From: tahoedave...@yahoo.com
> _________________________________________________________________
> Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection.http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/177141665/direct/01/
Lukáš Jirkovský
> I thought SURF was also patented but maybe it is only the
> implementation that is copyrighted. I don't know for sure. It would
> be nice to see a patent-free control generator for Hugin though. I am
> not a programmer so I wouldn't be much help. Here is the wiki page:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SURF
>
> but you may have that already.
You are still messing things up. SURF (the algorithm) is patented. You
can patent algorithm (in meaning of technical procedure), but honestly
there is only slight difference between patented algorithm and
software patent so it may not be valid everywhere. But speaking about
the software (implementation) the copyright law applies.
Dale Beams
There are many patents within the linux/gpl community. However there are organizations who have purchased and protect those patents against litigation, opening up use for everyone.
Patents are being used to protect open source, gpl, and linux in general, and still allow the use of those patents to anybody.
Isn't this the same thing that SIFT and SURF have done?
> Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 19:19:25 +0100
> Subject: Re: [hugin-ptx] Re: Moral questions
> From: l.jir...@gmail.com
> To: hugi...@googlegroups.com
my_dai...@yahoo.co.uk
he is willing to pay them for every image he stitched using their
methods. So, he came here to get general public support, but got flame
instead. And now he is in double trouble being alone with his shame of
using patented method and do not pay for them and without any general
public support. He will not sleep well now. ;-)
DaveN, if you so sure that patented products need to be honored and fees
payed, go ahead and pay them. Why do you need everyones opinion about
it. Not that I am against patented products, but against childish
position of individual: "If majority doing it this way it is good and I
should follow them". I am sure if you would live in China your mind set
would be different. What you are going to do with this general public
support? Show group's threads in a court?
Leonid
Dale Beams wrote:
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now.
DaveN
panorama for profit without paying the inventor of the algorithm, can
you be outraged if your panorama is used by others without payment to
you. I do not support a per scene fee such as iPix had and the
inventors of SIFT do not appear to be requesting that. I can deal
with being flamed. That seems to be typical when someone points out
the emperor has no clothes.
On Dec 22, 6:19 am, "my_daily_...@yahoo.co.uk"
> > > From: l.jirkov...@gmail.com
> > > To: hugi...@googlegroups.com
>
> > > 2009/12/18 DaveN <tahoedave...@yahoo.com>:
Dale Beams
There are many software patents within the Free Software Foundation and others in which use of that patent requires no monetary reimbursement.
Perhaps the patent obligations should be stated in the source and/or binary of the download.
Simply because it's patented does not mean that it requires payment from the author.
> Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 19:03:07 -0800
> Subject: [hugin-ptx] Re: Moral questions
Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service. Get it now.
DaveN
waiver in the case of SURF). From the SIFT site:
http://people.cs.ubc.ca/~lowe/keypoints/
This demo software is provided for research purposes only. A license
must be obtained from the University of British Columbia for any
commercial applications. The sofware is protected under a US patent as
listed below. This demo software is a research implementation, while
the licensed software has been further optimized for speed and to
provide a range of other capabilities. See the LICENSE file provided
with the demo software.
From the SURF page (interesting that the SURF page says it is
copyrighted but there is no mention of a patent)
http://www.vision.ee.ethz.ch/~surf/download.html
SURF is noncommercial. You may not use this work for commercial
purposes. For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others
the license terms of this work. Any of these conditions can be waived
if you get written permission from the copyright holder.
However, the third party SIFT and SURF implementations are less clear
but then they don't own the patents.
On Dec 22, 7:16 pm, Dale Beams <drbe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> The real question is, does the SIFT or SURF patent author allow or disallow the use of the patent without payment?
>
> There are many software patents within the Free Software Foundation and others in which use of that patent requires no monetary reimbursement.
>
> Perhaps the patent obligations should be stated in the source and/or binary of the download.
>
> Simply because it's patented does not mean that it requires payment from the author.
>
>
>
> > Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 19:03:07 -0800
> > Subject: [hugin-ptx] Re: Moral questions
> > From: tahoedave...@yahoo.com
> _________________________________________________________________
> Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service.http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/171222984/direct/01/
DaveN
waiver in the case of SURF). From the SIFT site:
http://people.cs.ubc.ca/~lowe/keypoints/
This demo software is provided for research purposes only. A license
must be obtained from the University of British Columbia for any
commercial applications. The sofware is protected under a US patent as
listed below. This demo software is a research implementation, while
the licensed software has been further optimized for speed and to
provide a range of other capabilities. See the LICENSE file provided
with the demo software.
From the SURF page (interesting that the SURF page says it is
copyrighted but there is no mention of a patent)
http://www.vision.ee.ethz.ch/~surf/download.html
SURF is noncommercial. You may not use this work for commercial
purposes. For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others
the license terms of this work. Any of these conditions can be waived
if you get written permission from the copyright holder.
However, the third party SIFT and SURF implementations are less clear
but then they don't own the patents.
On Dec 22, 7:16 pm, Dale Beams <drbe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> The real question is, does the SIFT or SURF patent author allow or disallow the use of the patent without payment?
>
> There are many software patents within the Free Software Foundation and others in which use of that patent requires no monetary reimbursement.
>
> Perhaps the patent obligations should be stated in the source and/or binary of the download.
>
> Simply because it's patented does not mean that it requires payment from the author.
>
>
>
> > Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 19:03:07 -0800
> > Subject: [hugin-ptx] Re: Moral questions
> > From: tahoedave...@yahoo.com
> _________________________________________________________________
> Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service.http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/171222984/direct/01/
Dale Beams
Are the derivatives based from the original release?
Commercial would have to be defined. Hugin may not qualify as a commercial applications because no monetary exchanged has been made.
Because Hugin and it's ability to use outside source builds or binaries of these programs are non-commercial, Hugin could conceivably include these in thier programs and be free and clear
Cheers ... :)
> Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 19:46:53 -0800
> Subject: [hugin-ptx] Re: Moral questions
DaveN
using Hugin and SIFT and selling the panoramas, that is a commercial
use of SIFT. If you are making them for fun, that isn't a commercial
use.
Patents take time to be issued so it is not uncommon for research to
be released before a patent is granted but it may have been applied
for much earlier.
On Dec 22, 8:30 pm, Dale Beams <drbe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> As I recall, SIFT was released prior to patent or permission (research would have to be done). How it was released prior to the Uni bringing it back so to speak.
>
> Are the derivatives based from the original release?
>
> Commercial would have to be defined. Hugin may not qualify as a commercial applications because no monetary exchanged has been made.
>
> Because Hugin and it's ability to use outside source builds or binaries of these programs are non-commercial, Hugin could conceivably include these in thier programs and be free and clear
>
> Cheers ... :)
>
> > Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 19:46:53 -0800
> > Subject: [hugin-ptx] Re: Moral questions
> > From: tahoedave...@yahoo.com
> ...
>
> read more »
Dale Beams
So, following your argument, you would first have to determine if the pano had been made with SIFT, SURF, or by hand. More importantly you would also have to request information from the patent holder on who had been granted patents rights.
Using any pano created by Hugin would be considered copyright violation, as you wouldn't know before what method was used. Is this a risk any person is willing to take? As an individual whose done pano's by hand, anybody using pano's i've created without my prior approval I would consider in violation of copyright and would exercise my legal rights.
> Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 20:48:53 -0800
> Subject: [hugin-ptx] Re: Moral questions
Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now.
Bart van Andel
On 23 dec, 04:46, DaveN <tahoedave...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> From the SURF page (interesting that the SURF page says it is
> copyrighted but there is no mention of a patent)
I checked the files they provide, and those contain a LICENSE file,
which I'll quote below. Indeed nothing is mentioned about patents
anywhere. I've checked 2 papers on the subject [0-1]: nothing there
either, nor is it mentioned on the Wikipedia page [2]. On an OpenCV
discussion [3] however I found a link to a page that show that indeed
there is a patent [4] (full text available from that site, upper
right).
[0] ftp://ftp.vision.ee.ethz.ch/publications/articles/eth_biwi_00517.pdf
[1] http://www.vision.ee.ethz.ch/~surf/eccv06.pdf
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SURF
[3] http://n2.nabble.com/SURF-protected-by-patent-td3458734.html
[4] http://v3.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC=EP&NR=2027558A2&FT=D
--
Bart
-----
LICENSE CONDITIONS
Copyright (2006): ETH Zurich, Switzerland
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium
All rights reserved.
For details, see the paper:
Herbert Bay, Tinne Tuytelaars, Luc Van Gool,
"SURF: Speeded Up Robust Features"
Proceedings of the ninth European Conference on Computer Vision, May
2006
Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and
its documentation for educational, research, and non-commercial
purposes, without fee and without a signed licensing agreement, is
hereby granted, provided that the above copyright notice and this
paragraph appear in all copies modifications, and distributions.
Any commercial use or any redistribution of this software
requires a license from one of the above mentioned establishments.
For further details, contact Andreas Ess (....@vision.ee.ethz.ch).
-----
Bart van Andel
mention of different, possibly less patent-restricted algorithms [5].
Could be interesting! Further investigation needed...
[5] http://n2.nabble.com/SURF-protected-by-patent-tp3458734p3463927.html
--
Bart
On 23 dec, 13:59, Bart van Andel <bavanan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 23 dec, 04:46, DaveN <tahoedave...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > From the SURF page (interesting that the SURF page says it is
> > copyrighted but there is no mention of a patent)
>
> I checked the files they provide, and those contain a LICENSE file,
> which I'll quote below. Indeed nothing is mentioned about patents
> anywhere. I've checked 2 papers on the subject [0-1]: nothing there
> either, nor is it mentioned on the Wikipedia page [2]. On an OpenCV
> discussion [3] however I found a link to a page that show that indeed
> there is a patent [4] (full text available from that site, upper
> right).
>
> [0]ftp://ftp.vision.ee.ethz.ch/publications/articles/eth_biwi_00517.pdf
> [1]http://www.vision.ee.ethz.ch/~surf/eccv06.pdf
> [2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SURF
> [3]http://n2.nabble.com/SURF-protected-by-patent-td3458734.html
> [4]http://v3.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC=EP&NR=2027558A2&...
Dale Beams
I noticed there the same comment, that patent holders allow others to use their patent for free.
I'd suggest that Hugin take the initiative and contact the patent holders and get an authorization to use the algorithm free of charge. This is the easiest solution. I'm sure they are already aware of Hugin and it's use of their algorithms.
Upon a yes or no, this can be included in the documentation. Upon a no, I'd like to suggest Hugin appeal to the open source developer community via Slashdot, or etc. and/or mathematicians to develop a patent free photo matching algorithm. If necessary, put up a bounty.
I'd also suggest that any individual or company accepting the challenge be required to publicly state their intentions to prevent reversal of license and patent holders in the future.
I do find it odd that the patent and copyright information is not in the current documentation. As good as this group is about finding omissions in other work in the Hugin code I would have assumed this was already there.
> Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 05:06:23 -0800
> Subject: [hugin-ptx] Re: Moral questions
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "hugin and other free panoramic software" group.
> A list of frequently asked questions is available at: http://wiki.panotools.org/Hugin_FAQ
> To post to this group, send email to hugi...@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to hugin-ptx+...@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/hugin-ptx
Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft’s powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now.
Roger Howard
On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 19:03:07 -0800 (PST), DaveN <tahoed...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> No. My bottom line is that if you use a patented algorithm to make a
> panorama for profit without paying the inventor of the algorithm, can
> you be outraged if your panorama is used by others without payment to
> you.
Yes, if you understand the difference between patents and copyright and
happen to have a distinctly different opinion on each based on their
distinctly different functions.
Yes, if as a user of an application - and not an implementor of algorithms
- you reasonably assume that you may use the application as you see fit,
and that you shouldn't be in the position of vetting each algorithm used
within the application for patent issues.
michael crane
is hugin using copyrighted/ patented stuff when it shouldn't ?
regards
mick
2009/12/23 Roger Howard <roger...@rogerroger.org>:
Dale Beams
Hugin is a gui for a number of underlying programs. Of those programs autopano-* and panomatic both are optional install. Both of these programs are automatic control point finders. You can locate control points by hand without these programs.
There is some question on what allowable rights these programs have granted in the use of Hugin. Currently these programs appear to be patented, but allowed for use in Hugin, as Hugin is not a commercial product.
Panos created with Hugin that use these two particular programs imho, are patent and copyright free, though the question has been asked if they are still free when the pano's themselves are sold. In other words, does the sale of the pano's constitute commercial use of Hugin.
I'm sure this will be resolved in the coming weeks.
> Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 22:42:37 +0000
> Subject: Re: [hugin-ptx] Re: Moral questions
Bruno Postle
>can somebody clear this up.
>is hugin using copyrighted/ patented stuff when it shouldn't ?
>regards
Everything in Hugin is copyrighted.
If you use autopano-sift-C (which isn't part of Hugin), you get a
big warning every time you use it telling you that SIFT is patented
in the USA and that you need to contact the patent holder for
'commercial use' in the USA.
This thread has nothing to do with Hugin, you are being trolled.
--
Bruno
Jake Kallman
DaveN
with Hugin and then include it in the Hugin download.
Kornel Benko
> It is very disingenuous to claim autopano-sift-C has nothing to do
> with Hugin and then include it in the Hugin download.
Could you be more specific? Which hugin download includes autopano-sift-C?
Getting source and compile yourself is not the same as download.
Please have a look at http://hugin.sourceforge.net/releases/2009.4.0/en.shtml, Control point generators.
Kornel
--
Kornel Benko
Kornel...@berlin.de
DaveN
> Getting source and compile yourself is not the same as download.
The Mac downloads include it in the compiled version downloads (tested
0.8.0 and 2009.4.0). I have not tested the Windows precompiled
versions.
Here is a link to the 2009.4.0 download:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/hugin/files/hugin/hugin-2009.4/hugin-mac-2009.4.0.dmg/download
On Dec 24, 11:47 pm, Kornel Benko <Kornel.Be...@berlin.de> wrote:
> Am Freitag 25 Dezember 2009 schrieb DaveN:
>
> > It is very disingenuous to claim autopano-sift-C has nothing to do
> > with Hugin and then include it in the Hugin download.
>
> Could you be more specific? Which hugin download includes autopano-sift-C?
> Getting source and compile yourself is not the same as download.
>
> Please have a look athttp://hugin.sourceforge.net/releases/2009.4.0/en.shtml, Control point generators.
>
> Kornel
>
> --
> Kornel Benko
> Kornel.Be...@berlin.de
>
> signature.asc
> < 1KViewDownload
Harry van der Wolf
> Could you be more specific? Which hugin download includes autopano-sift-C?The Mac downloads include it in the compiled version downloads (tested
> Getting source and compile yourself is not the same as download.
0.8.0 and 2009.4.0). I have not tested the Windows precompiled
versions.
Here is a link to the 2009.4.0 download:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/hugin/files/hugin/hugin-2009.4/hugin-mac-2009.4.0.dmg/download
As mentioned by me about 30 mails ago in this same thread:
Just for complete reference to both Mac and non-Mac users:
The 2009.2 was the first to include the AutoCP generators but NOT inside Hugin. They are delivered with the package as separate packages.
Technically speaking: the MacOSX .dmg that is downloaded is NOT a package, but the official MacOSX disk image format, like .iso or .nrg or whatever other formats exist. Like any CD distributed with many magazines containing lots and lots of software. That's not different.
Did you write to all those magazines as well?
When installing AutoCP generators on MacOSX, they are still NOT inside the Hugin packages but installed elsewhere.
The separate packes are in a separate Folder "on the CD" and come with a Readme when and where you can use them.
Inside the packages you will find again the Readme.
Harry
DaveN
autopano sift in the download. Saying a disk image isn't really a
package ring as being believable.
On Dec 25, 12:58 pm, Harry van der Wolf <hvdw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2009/12/25 DaveN <tahoedave...@yahoo.com>
>
> > > Could you be more specific? Which hugin download includes
> > autopano-sift-C?
> > > Getting source and compile yourself is not the same as download.
>
> > The Mac downloads include it in the compiled version downloads (tested
> > 0.8.0 and 2009.4.0). I have not tested the Windows precompiled
> > versions.
>
> > Here is a link to the 2009.4.0 download:
>
> >http://sourceforge.net/projects/hugin/files/hugin/hugin-2009.4/hugin-...
>
> As mentioned by me about 30 mails ago in this same thread:
>
> *Just for complete reference to both Mac and non-Mac users:
> The 2009.2 was the first to include the AutoCP generators but NOT inside
> Hugin. They are delivered with the package as separate packages.
> Technically speaking: the MacOSX .dmg that is downloaded is NOT a package,
> but the official MacOSX disk image format, like .iso or .nrg or whatever
> other formats exist. Like any CD distributed with many magazines containing
> lots and lots of software. That's not different.
> Did you write to all those magazines as well?
>
> When installing AutoCP generators on MacOSX, they are still NOT inside the
> Hugin packages but installed elsewhere.
> The separate packes are in a separate Folder "on the CD" and come with a
> Readme when and where you can use them.
> Inside the packages you will find again the Readme.*
>
> Harry
Oskar Sander
Furthermore it does not matter so much, as there is no issue whatsoever to distribute that bundle to the whole world (except one single country, USA), it seems like this fact is forgotten some times.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "hugin and other free panoramic software" group.
A list of frequently asked questions is available at: http://wiki.panotools.org/Hugin_FAQ
To post to this group, send email to hugi...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to hugin-ptx+...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/hugin-ptx
--
/O
Harry van der Wolf
Bottom line is that you click on a hugin download link and you get
autopano sift in the download. Saying a disk image isn't really a
package ring as being believable.
A disk image is definitely different even though you feel it is the same. And the Hugin for OSX "CD" is no more or less than a CD.
The physical form is not important (like downloading the ubuntu or Fedora disk or getting it via snail-mail or in a shop).
A user in the USA is warned 3 times and has the license 2 times available. If he/she still decides to use it, then this user is practicing illegal actions not the creator of the "CD".
One thing that is also constantly mixed up in this discussion: patent legislation, copyright legislation and licence legislation and finally "normal" legislation w.r.t. end user responsibility.
Next to that: all licenses claim the usage of the software AND the legislation in the country you are using it.
Using e.g. the OpenSource tool OpenOffice in North-Korea, as commercial journalist or non-commercial student, to write an article against the regime is still illegal in North-Korea even though it is not in the rest of the world.
Almost finally: the total population of the US is only 4% of the total world population, be it one of the more technically advanced 4%. The commercial photographers are even a much smaller amount of that 4% (and they should be aware).
It also irritates me as a European that (some parts of) this 4% think they can force their standard to the other 96%, or think that they are the standard everything else should be aligned against.
Especially when the distributed form is correct.
Harry
allard
in the USA that use hugin for commercial products need permission from
the UBC. As Bruno mentioned, users are warned about this during use,
but also in documentation accompanying the download. They can either
obtain that permission themselves or (if on windows) decide to
download the version of hugin without SIFT, readily available on
SourceForge.
SURF is patented worldwide, which is one of the reasons no control
point generator using SURF is included in hugin downloads for Windows.
Allard