From kikinis at bwh.harvard.edu Fri Jul 1 12:27:31 2011 From: kikinis at bwh.harvard.edu (Ron Kikinis) Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2011 08:27:31 -0400 Subject: [Ctk-developers] A more general discussion on the CTK at MICCAI 2011? In-Reply-To: <1c8c2a6a-2058-4a74-b8a2-5ed52eb67532@hamac.inria.fr> References: <1c8c2a6a-2058-4a74-b8a2-5ed52eb67532@hamac.inria.fr> Message-ID: <4E0DBD33.20503@bwh.harvard.edu> This is for lunch? On 5/27/2011 7:17 AM, Maxime Sermesant wrote: > Dear all, > > I can see with a local organiser to get a room (for around 20 people?) probably the 19th of September (the conference diner is usually on the second night, thus the 20th) at around 6:30 pm (the program is not online yet). Let me know if you already know of other meetings that would conflict with this one (I don't have the MICCAI board schedule for instance). > > PS: I (obviously) don't feel in any particular position in order to propose an agenda for the meeting and animate the discussion, and there will be CTK members better suited to do that, so I will limit my role to the logistics. > > Best wishes, > > -- > > Maxime > > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Hans-Peter Meinzer" >> To: "Gianluca Paladini (SCR US)", "Maxime Sermesant", >> ctk-developers at commontk.org >> Cc: "Alejandro Frangi" >> Sent: Friday, 27 May, 2011 1:06:38 PM >> Subject: AW: [Ctk-developers] A more general discussion on the CTK at MICCAI 2011? >> >> Ok. I will be also in Toronto. Can somebody organize a meeting room?. >> Best wishes from Heidelberg Peter Meinzer >> >> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- >> Von: ctk-developers-bounces at commontk.org >> [mailto:ctk-developers-bounces at commontk.org] Im Auftrag von >> Paladini, Gianluca (SCR US) >> Gesendet: Freitag, 27. Mai 2011 05:08 >> An: Maxime Sermesant; ctk-developers at commontk.org >> Cc: Alejandro Frangi >> Betreff: Re: [Ctk-developers] A more general discussion on the CTK at >> MICCAI 2011? >> >> Good idea, we haven't had committee/administrative meetings since >> 2009 and only one planning meeting at SPIE San Diego in 2010. >> MICCAI 2011 is a good opportunity, please count me in. >> Cordially, >> Gianluca >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: ctk-developers-bounces at commontk.org >> [mailto:ctk-developers-bounces at commontk.org] On Behalf Of Maxime >> Sermesant >> Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 10:35 AM >> To: ctk-developers at commontk.org >> Cc: Alejandro Frangi >> Subject: [Ctk-developers] A more general discussion on the CTK at >> MICCAI 2011? >> >> Dear all, >> >> within the discussions around imaging software at the European level >> (e.g. in the VPH Network of Excellence) there was a point raised >> regarding the general directions that the CTK is following, and >> how/when this is/could be discussed. I know that the CTK is >> currently mostly code-oriented, with the hackfests being its main >> concrete activity, but it would probably be helpful for all the >> involved partners to get an opportunity to discuss on the more >> global level. >> >> As Alex Frangi (in CC, who was also primarily interested by such >> discussion), myself and many others will be in Toronto this >> September for MICCAI 2011, maybe there could be an opportunity there >> to have a more high-level CTK meeting? >> >> I could also easily include such meeting in the hackfest happening at >> INRIA, but I am not sure if people interested in the discussion but >> not in the hackfest would then travel (understandably). >> >> Let me know if you are interested, so that I contact the MICCAI >> organisers to try to get a room for that if there is enough >> interest. >> >> Best wishes, >> >> -- >> >> Maxime >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Ctk-developers mailing list >> Ctk-developers at commontk.org >> http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers >> _______________________________________________ >> Ctk-developers mailing list >> Ctk-developers at commontk.org >> http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers >> > _______________________________________________ > Ctk-developers mailing list > Ctk-developers at commontk.org > http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers -- Ron Kikinis, M.D., Robert Greenes Distinguished Director of Biomedical Informatics Professor of Radiology, Harvard Medical School Director, Surgical Planning Laboratory http://www.spl.harvard.edu/~kikinis From maxime.sermesant at inria.fr Fri Jul 1 16:18:30 2011 From: maxime.sermesant at inria.fr (Maxime Sermesant) Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2011 18:18:30 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [Ctk-developers] A more general discussion on the CTK at MICCAI 2011? In-Reply-To: <4E0DBD33.20503@bwh.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <6872470f-9d67-4b9c-b200-aec626bcd480@maxime-sermesants-macbook-air.local> Hello, There is already an open source meeting on the night of the first workshop day, so the organisers told me to organise the CTK discussion on the night of the last workshop day (22th of September). They are not in favour of having other events during the 3 main conference days :-| However I am afraid people will start travelling back after one week of MICCAI. So I can try to ask again (or someone with more influence ;) or we can do that independently whether during one lunch or one night, because we may not really need a meeting room facilities for such discussion. Let me know your preferred option. (I can already guarantee you a room for a CTK meeting at next year's MICCAI in Nice ;) Best, -- Maxime PS: the other meeting webpage: https://www.assembla.com/spaces/sparkit/wiki/OCAIRO-SparKit_technical_meeting_at_MICCAI ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ron Kikinis" > To: ctk-developers at commontk.org > Sent: Friday, 1 July, 2011 2:27:31 PM > Subject: Re: [Ctk-developers] A more general discussion on the CTK at MICCAI 2011? > > This is for lunch? > > On 5/27/2011 7:17 AM, Maxime Sermesant wrote: > > Dear all, > > > > I can see with a local organiser to get a room (for around 20 > > people?) probably the 19th of September (the conference diner is > > usually on the second night, thus the 20th) at around 6:30 pm (the > > program is not online yet). Let me know if you already know of > > other meetings that would conflict with this one (I don't have the > > MICCAI board schedule for instance). > > > > PS: I (obviously) don't feel in any particular position in order to > > propose an agenda for the meeting and animate the discussion, and > > there will be CTK members better suited to do that, so I will > > limit my role to the logistics. > > > > Best wishes, > > > > -- > > > > Maxime > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: "Hans-Peter Meinzer" > >> To: "Gianluca Paladini (SCR US)", > >> "Maxime Sermesant", > >> ctk-developers at commontk.org > >> Cc: "Alejandro Frangi" > >> Sent: Friday, 27 May, 2011 1:06:38 PM > >> Subject: AW: [Ctk-developers] A more general discussion on the CTK > >> at MICCAI 2011? > >> > >> Ok. I will be also in Toronto. Can somebody organize a meeting > >> room?. > >> Best wishes from Heidelberg Peter Meinzer > >> > >> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > >> Von: ctk-developers-bounces at commontk.org > >> [mailto:ctk-developers-bounces at commontk.org] Im Auftrag von > >> Paladini, Gianluca (SCR US) > >> Gesendet: Freitag, 27. Mai 2011 05:08 > >> An: Maxime Sermesant; ctk-developers at commontk.org > >> Cc: Alejandro Frangi > >> Betreff: Re: [Ctk-developers] A more general discussion on the CTK > >> at > >> MICCAI 2011? > >> > >> Good idea, we haven't had committee/administrative meetings since > >> 2009 and only one planning meeting at SPIE San Diego in 2010. > >> MICCAI 2011 is a good opportunity, please count me in. > >> Cordially, > >> Gianluca > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: ctk-developers-bounces at commontk.org > >> [mailto:ctk-developers-bounces at commontk.org] On Behalf Of Maxime > >> Sermesant > >> Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 10:35 AM > >> To: ctk-developers at commontk.org > >> Cc: Alejandro Frangi > >> Subject: [Ctk-developers] A more general discussion on the CTK at > >> MICCAI 2011? > >> > >> Dear all, > >> > >> within the discussions around imaging software at the European > >> level > >> (e.g. in the VPH Network of Excellence) there was a point raised > >> regarding the general directions that the CTK is following, and > >> how/when this is/could be discussed. I know that the CTK is > >> currently mostly code-oriented, with the hackfests being its main > >> concrete activity, but it would probably be helpful for all the > >> involved partners to get an opportunity to discuss on the more > >> global level. > >> > >> As Alex Frangi (in CC, who was also primarily interested by such > >> discussion), myself and many others will be in Toronto this > >> September for MICCAI 2011, maybe there could be an opportunity > >> there > >> to have a more high-level CTK meeting? > >> > >> I could also easily include such meeting in the hackfest happening > >> at > >> INRIA, but I am not sure if people interested in the discussion > >> but > >> not in the hackfest would then travel (understandably). > >> > >> Let me know if you are interested, so that I contact the MICCAI > >> organisers to try to get a room for that if there is enough > >> interest. > >> > >> Best wishes, > >> > >> -- > >> > >> Maxime > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Ctk-developers mailing list > >> Ctk-developers at commontk.org > >> http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Ctk-developers mailing list > >> Ctk-developers at commontk.org > >> http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > Ctk-developers mailing list > > Ctk-developers at commontk.org > > http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers > > > -- > Ron Kikinis, M.D., > Robert Greenes Distinguished Director of Biomedical Informatics > Professor of Radiology, Harvard Medical School > Director, Surgical Planning Laboratory > http://www.spl.harvard.edu/~kikinis > _______________________________________________ > Ctk-developers mailing list > Ctk-developers at commontk.org > http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers > From kikinis at bwh.harvard.edu Fri Jul 1 16:46:37 2011 From: kikinis at bwh.harvard.edu (Ron Kikinis) Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2011 12:46:37 -0400 Subject: [Ctk-developers] A more general discussion on the CTK at MICCAI 2011? In-Reply-To: <6872470f-9d67-4b9c-b200-aec626bcd480@maxime-sermesants-macbook-air.local> References: <6872470f-9d67-4b9c-b200-aec626bcd480@maxime-sermesants-macbook-air.local> Message-ID: <4E0DF9ED.5090209@bwh.harvard.edu> We could do an informal meeting during lunch on Monday? On 7/1/11 12:18 PM, Maxime Sermesant wrote: > Hello, > > There is already an open source meeting on the night of the first workshop day, so the organisers told me to organise the CTK discussion on the night of the last workshop day (22th of September). They are not in favour of having other events during the 3 main conference days :-| > > However I am afraid people will start travelling back after one week of MICCAI. > > So I can try to ask again (or someone with more influence ;) or we can do that independently whether during one lunch or one night, because we may not really need a meeting room facilities for such discussion. > > Let me know your preferred option. > > (I can already guarantee you a room for a CTK meeting at next year's MICCAI in Nice ;) > > Best, > > -- > > Maxime > > > PS: the other meeting webpage: https://www.assembla.com/spaces/sparkit/wiki/OCAIRO-SparKit_technical_meeting_at_MICCAI > > > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Ron Kikinis" >> To: ctk-developers at commontk.org >> Sent: Friday, 1 July, 2011 2:27:31 PM >> Subject: Re: [Ctk-developers] A more general discussion on the CTK at MICCAI 2011? >> >> This is for lunch? >> >> On 5/27/2011 7:17 AM, Maxime Sermesant wrote: >>> Dear all, >>> >>> I can see with a local organiser to get a room (for around 20 >>> people?) probably the 19th of September (the conference diner is >>> usually on the second night, thus the 20th) at around 6:30 pm (the >>> program is not online yet). Let me know if you already know of >>> other meetings that would conflict with this one (I don't have the >>> MICCAI board schedule for instance). >>> >>> PS: I (obviously) don't feel in any particular position in order to >>> propose an agenda for the meeting and animate the discussion, and >>> there will be CTK members better suited to do that, so I will >>> limit my role to the logistics. >>> >>> Best wishes, >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Maxime >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: "Hans-Peter Meinzer" >>>> To: "Gianluca Paladini (SCR US)", >>>> "Maxime Sermesant", >>>> ctk-developers at commontk.org >>>> Cc: "Alejandro Frangi" >>>> Sent: Friday, 27 May, 2011 1:06:38 PM >>>> Subject: AW: [Ctk-developers] A more general discussion on the CTK >>>> at MICCAI 2011? >>>> >>>> Ok. I will be also in Toronto. Can somebody organize a meeting >>>> room?. >>>> Best wishes from Heidelberg Peter Meinzer >>>> >>>> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- >>>> Von: ctk-developers-bounces at commontk.org >>>> [mailto:ctk-developers-bounces at commontk.org] Im Auftrag von >>>> Paladini, Gianluca (SCR US) >>>> Gesendet: Freitag, 27. Mai 2011 05:08 >>>> An: Maxime Sermesant; ctk-developers at commontk.org >>>> Cc: Alejandro Frangi >>>> Betreff: Re: [Ctk-developers] A more general discussion on the CTK >>>> at >>>> MICCAI 2011? >>>> >>>> Good idea, we haven't had committee/administrative meetings since >>>> 2009 and only one planning meeting at SPIE San Diego in 2010. >>>> MICCAI 2011 is a good opportunity, please count me in. >>>> Cordially, >>>> Gianluca >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: ctk-developers-bounces at commontk.org >>>> [mailto:ctk-developers-bounces at commontk.org] On Behalf Of Maxime >>>> Sermesant >>>> Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 10:35 AM >>>> To: ctk-developers at commontk.org >>>> Cc: Alejandro Frangi >>>> Subject: [Ctk-developers] A more general discussion on the CTK at >>>> MICCAI 2011? >>>> >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> within the discussions around imaging software at the European >>>> level >>>> (e.g. in the VPH Network of Excellence) there was a point raised >>>> regarding the general directions that the CTK is following, and >>>> how/when this is/could be discussed. I know that the CTK is >>>> currently mostly code-oriented, with the hackfests being its main >>>> concrete activity, but it would probably be helpful for all the >>>> involved partners to get an opportunity to discuss on the more >>>> global level. >>>> >>>> As Alex Frangi (in CC, who was also primarily interested by such >>>> discussion), myself and many others will be in Toronto this >>>> September for MICCAI 2011, maybe there could be an opportunity >>>> there >>>> to have a more high-level CTK meeting? >>>> >>>> I could also easily include such meeting in the hackfest happening >>>> at >>>> INRIA, but I am not sure if people interested in the discussion >>>> but >>>> not in the hackfest would then travel (understandably). >>>> >>>> Let me know if you are interested, so that I contact the MICCAI >>>> organisers to try to get a room for that if there is enough >>>> interest. >>>> >>>> Best wishes, >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Maxime >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Ctk-developers mailing list >>>> Ctk-developers at commontk.org >>>> http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Ctk-developers mailing list >>>> Ctk-developers at commontk.org >>>> http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Ctk-developers mailing list >>> Ctk-developers at commontk.org >>> http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers >> >> >> -- >> Ron Kikinis, M.D., >> Robert Greenes Distinguished Director of Biomedical Informatics >> Professor of Radiology, Harvard Medical School >> Director, Surgical Planning Laboratory >> http://www.spl.harvard.edu/~kikinis >> _______________________________________________ >> Ctk-developers mailing list >> Ctk-developers at commontk.org >> http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers >> -- Ron Kikinis, M.D., Robert Greenes Distinguished Director of Biomedical Informatics Professor of Radiology, Harvard Medical School Director, Surgical Planning Laboratory http://www.spl.harvard.edu/~kikinis From maxime.sermesant at inria.fr Sat Jul 2 12:58:37 2011 From: maxime.sermesant at inria.fr (Maxime Sermesant) Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2011 14:58:37 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [Ctk-developers] A more general discussion on the CTK at MICCAI 2011? In-Reply-To: <4E0DF9ED.5090209@bwh.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <1771382181.3444715.1309611517022.JavaMail.root@zmbs3.inria.fr> > We could do an informal meeting during lunch on Monday? that's good for me. best, -- Maxime > On 7/1/11 12:18 PM, Maxime Sermesant wrote: > > Hello, > > > > There is already an open source meeting on the night of the first > > workshop day, so the organisers told me to organise the CTK > > discussion on the night of the last workshop day (22th of > > September). They are not in favour of having other events during the > > 3 main conference days :-| > > > > However I am afraid people will start travelling back after one week > > of MICCAI. > > > > So I can try to ask again (or someone with more influence ;) or we > > can do that independently whether during one lunch or one night, > > because we may not really need a meeting room facilities for such > > discussion. > > > > Let me know your preferred option. > > > > (I can already guarantee you a room for a CTK meeting at next year's > > MICCAI in Nice ;) > > > > Best, > > > > -- > > > > Maxime > > > > > > PS: the other meeting webpage: > > https://www.assembla.com/spaces/sparkit/wiki/OCAIRO-SparKit_technical_meeting_at_MICCAI > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: "Ron Kikinis" > >> To: ctk-developers at commontk.org > >> Sent: Friday, 1 July, 2011 2:27:31 PM > >> Subject: Re: [Ctk-developers] A more general discussion on the CTK > >> at MICCAI 2011? > >> > >> This is for lunch? > >> > >> On 5/27/2011 7:17 AM, Maxime Sermesant wrote: > >>> Dear all, > >>> > >>> I can see with a local organiser to get a room (for around 20 > >>> people?) probably the 19th of September (the conference diner is > >>> usually on the second night, thus the 20th) at around 6:30 pm (the > >>> program is not online yet). Let me know if you already know of > >>> other meetings that would conflict with this one (I don't have the > >>> MICCAI board schedule for instance). > >>> > >>> PS: I (obviously) don't feel in any particular position in order > >>> to > >>> propose an agenda for the meeting and animate the discussion, and > >>> there will be CTK members better suited to do that, so I will > >>> limit my role to the logistics. > >>> > >>> Best wishes, > >>> > >>> -- > >>> > >>> Maxime > >>> > >>> ----- Original Message ----- > >>>> From: "Hans-Peter Meinzer" > >>>> To: "Gianluca Paladini (SCR US)", > >>>> "Maxime Sermesant", > >>>> ctk-developers at commontk.org > >>>> Cc: "Alejandro Frangi" > >>>> Sent: Friday, 27 May, 2011 1:06:38 PM > >>>> Subject: AW: [Ctk-developers] A more general discussion on the > >>>> CTK > >>>> at MICCAI 2011? > >>>> > >>>> Ok. I will be also in Toronto. Can somebody organize a meeting > >>>> room?. > >>>> Best wishes from Heidelberg Peter Meinzer > >>>> > >>>> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > >>>> Von: ctk-developers-bounces at commontk.org > >>>> [mailto:ctk-developers-bounces at commontk.org] Im Auftrag von > >>>> Paladini, Gianluca (SCR US) > >>>> Gesendet: Freitag, 27. Mai 2011 05:08 > >>>> An: Maxime Sermesant; ctk-developers at commontk.org > >>>> Cc: Alejandro Frangi > >>>> Betreff: Re: [Ctk-developers] A more general discussion on the > >>>> CTK > >>>> at > >>>> MICCAI 2011? > >>>> > >>>> Good idea, we haven't had committee/administrative meetings since > >>>> 2009 and only one planning meeting at SPIE San Diego in 2010. > >>>> MICCAI 2011 is a good opportunity, please count me in. > >>>> Cordially, > >>>> Gianluca > >>>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: ctk-developers-bounces at commontk.org > >>>> [mailto:ctk-developers-bounces at commontk.org] On Behalf Of Maxime > >>>> Sermesant > >>>> Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 10:35 AM > >>>> To: ctk-developers at commontk.org > >>>> Cc: Alejandro Frangi > >>>> Subject: [Ctk-developers] A more general discussion on the CTK at > >>>> MICCAI 2011? > >>>> > >>>> Dear all, > >>>> > >>>> within the discussions around imaging software at the European > >>>> level > >>>> (e.g. in the VPH Network of Excellence) there was a point raised > >>>> regarding the general directions that the CTK is following, and > >>>> how/when this is/could be discussed. I know that the CTK is > >>>> currently mostly code-oriented, with the hackfests being its main > >>>> concrete activity, but it would probably be helpful for all the > >>>> involved partners to get an opportunity to discuss on the more > >>>> global level. > >>>> > >>>> As Alex Frangi (in CC, who was also primarily interested by such > >>>> discussion), myself and many others will be in Toronto this > >>>> September for MICCAI 2011, maybe there could be an opportunity > >>>> there > >>>> to have a more high-level CTK meeting? > >>>> > >>>> I could also easily include such meeting in the hackfest > >>>> happening > >>>> at > >>>> INRIA, but I am not sure if people interested in the discussion > >>>> but > >>>> not in the hackfest would then travel (understandably). > >>>> > >>>> Let me know if you are interested, so that I contact the MICCAI > >>>> organisers to try to get a room for that if there is enough > >>>> interest. > >>>> > >>>> Best wishes, > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> > >>>> Maxime > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> Ctk-developers mailing list > >>>> Ctk-developers at commontk.org > >>>> http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> Ctk-developers mailing list > >>>> Ctk-developers at commontk.org > >>>> http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers > >>>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Ctk-developers mailing list > >>> Ctk-developers at commontk.org > >>> http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Ron Kikinis, M.D., > >> Robert Greenes Distinguished Director of Biomedical Informatics > >> Professor of Radiology, Harvard Medical School > >> Director, Surgical Planning Laboratory > >> http://www.spl.harvard.edu/~kikinis > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Ctk-developers mailing list > >> Ctk-developers at commontk.org > >> http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers > >> > > -- > Ron Kikinis, M.D., > Robert Greenes Distinguished Director of Biomedical Informatics > Professor of Radiology, Harvard Medical School > Director, Surgical Planning Laboratory > http://www.spl.harvard.edu/~kikinis From domibel at debian.org Sat Jul 9 15:14:59 2011 From: domibel at debian.org (Dominique Belhachemi) Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2011 11:14:59 -0400 Subject: [Ctk-developers] CTK license and copyright Message-ID: Hi, I try to figure out whether or not the CTK source code can be distributed. Now I am having a couple of questions. - Some files in the CTK repository are covered by the ParaView license version 1.2. Is it possible to add the referenced file 'License_v1.2.txt' to the repository? - The Slicer license is missing as well. I found some statements which points to dead links: "See Doc/copyright/copyright.txt or http://www.slicer.org/copyright/copyright.txt for details." - Who is the main copyright holder of CTK? Thanks Dominique From pieper at ibility.net Sat Jul 9 15:24:36 2011 From: pieper at ibility.net (Steve Pieper) Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2011 11:24:36 -0400 Subject: [Ctk-developers] Can we redirect a link - Fwd: CTK license and copyright Message-ID: Hi - As Dominique points out below, this link is dead: #1: http://www.slicer.org/copyright/copyright.txt when you go to it, you get redirected to here: #2 http://www.slicer.org/cgi-bin/License/SlicerLicenseForm.pl which is probably offline and won't come back. Currently on the slicer.org download pages we are using this link as are official license page: #3 http://www.slicer.org/pages/LicenseText Since a lot of existing code has link #1 included, can we change the redirect so it goes to link #3? And perhaps also make #2 redirect to #3, since it may be included in some pages somewhere. Thanks, Steve ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Dominique Belhachemi Date: Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 11:14 AM Subject: [Ctk-developers] CTK license and copyright To: ctk-developers at commontk.org Hi, I try to figure out whether or not the CTK source code can be distributed. Now I am having a couple of questions. - Some files in the CTK repository are covered by the ParaView license version 1.2. Is it possible to add the referenced file 'License_v1.2.txt' to the repository? - The Slicer license is missing as well. I found some statements which points to dead links: "See Doc/copyright/copyright.txt or http://www.slicer.org/copyright/copyright.txt for details." - Who is the main copyright holder of CTK? Thanks Dominique _______________________________________________ Ctk-developers mailing list Ctk-developers at commontk.org http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephen.aylward at kitware.com Sat Jul 9 15:35:16 2011 From: stephen.aylward at kitware.com (Stephen Aylward) Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2011 11:35:16 -0400 Subject: [Ctk-developers] CTK license and copyright In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Dominique, Thanks for asking and checking the files. All of CTK is suppose to be under the Apache 2.0 license. If you find files with any other licence, please let us know. We will fix them immediately. Regarding the holder of the copyright - I believe we decided that there would be no single copyright holder for CTK. The files are held by the individual contributors and/or their institutions. This is not how I would prefer things, because it creates an impression of complex ownership (whereas the Apache license assures the code will always be free for commercial and non-commercial use, and without patent restrictions to the best of our knowledge). The CTK members should probably re-address copyright assignments. I suggest we have the assignment go to the Insight Software Consortium (ISC) or some other independent entity. Hans Johnson at U of Iowa is the current president of the ISC, and he could ask the ISC board to accept CTK as an ISC-sponsored toolkit. More info on the ISC is at: http://insightsoftwareconsortium.org/ Stephen On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Dominique Belhachemi wrote: > Hi, > > I try to figure out whether or not the CTK source code can be > distributed. Now I am having a couple of questions. > > - Some files in the CTK repository are covered by the ParaView license > version 1.2. Is it possible to add the referenced file > 'License_v1.2.txt' to the repository? > > - The Slicer license is missing as well. I found some statements which > points to dead links: > ?"See Doc/copyright/copyright.txt > ?or http://www.slicer.org/copyright/copyright.txt for details." > > - Who is the main copyright holder of CTK? > > Thanks > Dominique > _______________________________________________ > Ctk-developers mailing list > Ctk-developers at commontk.org > http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers > -- ============================== Stephen R. Aylward, Ph.D. Director of Medical Imaging Research Kitware, Inc. - North Carolina Office http://www.kitware.com stephen.aylward (Skype) (919) 969-6990 x300 From julien.finet at kitware.com Sat Jul 9 15:42:11 2011 From: julien.finet at kitware.com (Julien Finet) Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2011 11:42:11 -0400 Subject: [Ctk-developers] CTK license and copyright In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Stephen, Some files in CTK have been a direct work over ParaView or Slicer files. I don't think their copyright policy allow us to take their rights, so we can't just remove their copyrights, can we ? It is allowed to have 2 copyrights for 1 file, isn't it? Shall we have a "Copyrights" directory where we have all the license files ? Please educate me on the best practice here. Thanks, Julien. On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Stephen Aylward < stephen.aylward at kitware.com> wrote: > Hi Dominique, > > Thanks for asking and checking the files. > > All of CTK is suppose to be under the Apache 2.0 license. If you > find files with any other licence, please let us know. We will fix > them immediately. > > Regarding the holder of the copyright - I believe we decided that > there would be no single copyright holder for CTK. The files are held > by the individual contributors and/or their institutions. This is > not how I would prefer things, because it creates an impression of > complex ownership (whereas the Apache license assures the code will > always be free for commercial and non-commercial use, and without > patent restrictions to the best of our knowledge). > > The CTK members should probably re-address copyright assignments. I > suggest we have the assignment go to the Insight Software Consortium > (ISC) or some other independent entity. Hans Johnson at U of Iowa is > the current president of the ISC, and he could ask the ISC board to > accept CTK as an ISC-sponsored toolkit. More info on the ISC is at: > http://insightsoftwareconsortium.org/ > > Stephen > > > > On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Dominique Belhachemi > wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I try to figure out whether or not the CTK source code can be > > distributed. Now I am having a couple of questions. > > > > - Some files in the CTK repository are covered by the ParaView license > > version 1.2. Is it possible to add the referenced file > > 'License_v1.2.txt' to the repository? > > > > - The Slicer license is missing as well. I found some statements which > > points to dead links: > > "See Doc/copyright/copyright.txt > > or http://www.slicer.org/copyright/copyright.txt for details." > > > > - Who is the main copyright holder of CTK? > > > > Thanks > > Dominique > > _______________________________________________ > > Ctk-developers mailing list > > Ctk-developers at commontk.org > > http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers > > > > > > -- > > ============================== > Stephen R. Aylward, Ph.D. > Director of Medical Imaging Research > Kitware, Inc. - North Carolina Office > http://www.kitware.com > stephen.aylward (Skype) > (919) 969-6990 x300 > _______________________________________________ > Ctk-developers mailing list > Ctk-developers at commontk.org > http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jchris.fillionr at kitware.com Sat Jul 9 15:52:13 2011 From: jchris.fillionr at kitware.com (Jean-Christophe Fillion-Robin) Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2011 11:52:13 -0400 Subject: [Ctk-developers] CTK license and copyright In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Dominique, Please review the following topic: https://github.com/jcfr/CTK/compare/master...fix-license-header 788f261 Use URL to refer to ParaView license version 1.2 d4b55ab Fix indent in "Module" attribute associated with Paraview license header 681c958 ctkBinaryFileDescriptor - Remove BWH Copyright year and fix indent 20cc5c8 Update license header associated with ctkVTKThumbnailViewTest1 56041fa Update license header associated with PythonQtDecorators Thanks Jc On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Stephen Aylward < stephen.aylward at kitware.com> wrote: > Hi Dominique, > > Thanks for asking and checking the files. > > All of CTK is suppose to be under the Apache 2.0 license. If you > find files with any other licence, please let us know. We will fix > them immediately. > > Regarding the holder of the copyright - I believe we decided that > there would be no single copyright holder for CTK. The files are held > by the individual contributors and/or their institutions. This is > not how I would prefer things, because it creates an impression of > complex ownership (whereas the Apache license assures the code will > always be free for commercial and non-commercial use, and without > patent restrictions to the best of our knowledge). > > The CTK members should probably re-address copyright assignments. I > suggest we have the assignment go to the Insight Software Consortium > (ISC) or some other independent entity. Hans Johnson at U of Iowa is > the current president of the ISC, and he could ask the ISC board to > accept CTK as an ISC-sponsored toolkit. More info on the ISC is at: > http://insightsoftwareconsortium.org/ > > Stephen > > > > On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Dominique Belhachemi > wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I try to figure out whether or not the CTK source code can be > > distributed. Now I am having a couple of questions. > > > > - Some files in the CTK repository are covered by the ParaView license > > version 1.2. Is it possible to add the referenced file > > 'License_v1.2.txt' to the repository? > > > > - The Slicer license is missing as well. I found some statements which > > points to dead links: > > "See Doc/copyright/copyright.txt > > or http://www.slicer.org/copyright/copyright.txt for details." > > > > - Who is the main copyright holder of CTK? > > > > Thanks > > Dominique > > _______________________________________________ > > Ctk-developers mailing list > > Ctk-developers at commontk.org > > http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers > > > > > > -- > > ============================== > Stephen R. Aylward, Ph.D. > Director of Medical Imaging Research > Kitware, Inc. - North Carolina Office > http://www.kitware.com > stephen.aylward (Skype) > (919) 969-6990 x300 > _______________________________________________ > Ctk-developers mailing list > Ctk-developers at commontk.org > http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers > -- +1 919 869 8849 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From domibel at debian.org Sat Jul 9 17:50:04 2011 From: domibel at debian.org (Dominique Belhachemi) Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2011 13:50:04 -0400 Subject: [Ctk-developers] CTK license and copyright In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Jc, Thank you for fixing those files. It looks much better now. If you decide to keep dual-licensed files in the repository then Julien's idea to add a Copyright folder is a good solution. But what license does apply if a user provides a patch? The web URLs are problematic too, what if someone changes the content of those web pages to a different license? Thanks Dominique On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Jean-Christophe Fillion-Robin wrote: > Hi Dominique, > > Please review the following topic: > ? https://github.com/jcfr/CTK/compare/master...fix-license-header > > 788f261 Use URL to refer to ParaView license version 1.2 > d4b55ab Fix indent in "Module" attribute associated with Paraview license > header > 681c958 ctkBinaryFileDescriptor - Remove BWH Copyright year and fix indent > 20cc5c8 Update license header associated with ctkVTKThumbnailViewTest1 > 56041fa Update license header associated with PythonQtDecorators > > Thanks > Jc > > > > On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Stephen Aylward > wrote: >> >> Hi Dominique, >> >> Thanks for asking and checking the files. >> >> All of CTK is suppose to be under the Apache 2.0 license. ? If you >> find files with any other licence, please let us know. ? We will fix >> them immediately. >> >> Regarding the holder of the copyright - I believe we decided that >> there would be no single copyright holder for CTK. ?The files are held >> by the individual contributors and/or their institutions. ? This is >> not how I would prefer things, because it creates an impression of >> complex ownership (whereas the Apache license assures the code will >> always be free for commercial and non-commercial use, and without >> patent restrictions to the best of our knowledge). >> >> The CTK members should probably re-address copyright assignments. ? I >> suggest we have the assignment go to the Insight Software Consortium >> (ISC) or some other independent entity. ? Hans Johnson at U of Iowa is >> the current president of the ISC, and he could ask the ISC board to >> accept CTK as an ISC-sponsored toolkit. ? More info on the ISC is at: >> http://insightsoftwareconsortium.org/ >> >> Stephen >> >> >> >> On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Dominique Belhachemi >> wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > I try to figure out whether or not the CTK source code can be >> > distributed. Now I am having a couple of questions. >> > >> > - Some files in the CTK repository are covered by the ParaView license >> > version 1.2. Is it possible to add the referenced file >> > 'License_v1.2.txt' to the repository? >> > >> > - The Slicer license is missing as well. I found some statements which >> > points to dead links: >> > ?"See Doc/copyright/copyright.txt >> > ?or http://www.slicer.org/copyright/copyright.txt for details." >> > >> > - Who is the main copyright holder of CTK? >> > >> > Thanks >> > Dominique >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Ctk-developers mailing list >> > Ctk-developers at commontk.org >> > http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> >> ============================== >> Stephen R. Aylward, Ph.D. >> Director of Medical Imaging Research >> Kitware, Inc. - North Carolina Office >> http://www.kitware.com >> stephen.aylward (Skype) >> (919) 969-6990 x300 >> _______________________________________________ >> Ctk-developers mailing list >> Ctk-developers at commontk.org >> http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers > > > > -- > +1 919 869 8849 > > From luis.ibanez at kitware.com Sat Jul 9 18:14:04 2011 From: luis.ibanez at kitware.com (Luis Ibanez) Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2011 14:14:04 -0400 Subject: [Ctk-developers] CTK license and copyright In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Julien, Removing a copyright notice is a criminal offense (a misdemeanor) under current US Copyright Laws. --------------------------------------------------- http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html Title 17, Chapter 5, ? 506. Criminal offenses: "(c) Fraudulent Copyright Notice. ? Any person who, with fraudulent intent, places on any article a notice of copyright or words of the same purport that such person knows to be false, or who, with fraudulent intent, publicly distributes or imports for public distribution any article bearing such notice or words that such person knows to be false, shall be fined not more than $2,500. (d) Fraudulent Removal of Copyright Notice. ? Any person who, with fraudulent intent, removes or alters any notice of copyright appearing on a copy of a copyrighted work shall be fined not more than $2,500. (e) False Representation. ? Any person who knowingly makes a false representation of a material fact in the application for copyright registration provided for by section 409, or in any written statement filed in connection with the application, shall be fined not more than $2,500. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ When files are copy/pasted or moved between projects, their original copyright notices must be kept in place. It is customary (and legal) to add the copyright notice of the new project above the original copyright notice. The new project will hold the copyright of the modifications made to the file (if any), while the copyright of the original file content remains with the initial project. Files can only moved between projects when: A) The license of the source project is compatible with the license of the destination project, or B) When the copyright holder of the first project transfers the copyright to the second project, or C) When the copyright holder of the first project relicenses the file to the second project. The Best practice is to keep a trace of all these transactions in the NOTICE file at the top of the project directory. See for example: https://github.com/Kitware/ITK/blob/master/NOTICE Luis ---------------------------------------------------------- On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 11:42 AM, Julien Finet wrote: > Hi Stephen, > Some files in CTK have been a direct work over ParaView or Slicer files. > I don't think their copyright policy allow us to take their rights, so we > can't just remove their copyrights, can we ? > It is allowed to have 2 copyrights for 1 file, isn't it? > Shall we have a "Copyrights" directory where we have all the license files ? > Please educate me on the best practice here. > Thanks, > Julien. > > On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Stephen Aylward > wrote: >> >> Hi Dominique, >> >> Thanks for asking and checking the files. >> >> All of CTK is suppose to be under the Apache 2.0 license. ? If you >> find files with any other licence, please let us know. ? We will fix >> them immediately. >> >> Regarding the holder of the copyright - I believe we decided that >> there would be no single copyright holder for CTK. ?The files are held >> by the individual contributors and/or their institutions. ? This is >> not how I would prefer things, because it creates an impression of >> complex ownership (whereas the Apache license assures the code will >> always be free for commercial and non-commercial use, and without >> patent restrictions to the best of our knowledge). >> >> The CTK members should probably re-address copyright assignments. ? I >> suggest we have the assignment go to the Insight Software Consortium >> (ISC) or some other independent entity. ? Hans Johnson at U of Iowa is >> the current president of the ISC, and he could ask the ISC board to >> accept CTK as an ISC-sponsored toolkit. ? More info on the ISC is at: >> http://insightsoftwareconsortium.org/ >> >> Stephen >> >> >> >> On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Dominique Belhachemi >> wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > I try to figure out whether or not the CTK source code can be >> > distributed. Now I am having a couple of questions. >> > >> > - Some files in the CTK repository are covered by the ParaView license >> > version 1.2. Is it possible to add the referenced file >> > 'License_v1.2.txt' to the repository? >> > >> > - The Slicer license is missing as well. I found some statements which >> > points to dead links: >> > ?"See Doc/copyright/copyright.txt >> > ?or http://www.slicer.org/copyright/copyright.txt for details." >> > >> > - Who is the main copyright holder of CTK? >> > >> > Thanks >> > Dominique >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Ctk-developers mailing list >> > Ctk-developers at commontk.org >> > http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> >> ============================== >> Stephen R. Aylward, Ph.D. >> Director of Medical Imaging Research >> Kitware, Inc. - North Carolina Office >> http://www.kitware.com >> stephen.aylward (Skype) >> (919) 969-6990 x300 >> _______________________________________________ >> Ctk-developers mailing list >> Ctk-developers at commontk.org >> http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers > > > _______________________________________________ > Ctk-developers mailing list > Ctk-developers at commontk.org > http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers > > From domibel at debian.org Sat Jul 9 18:39:41 2011 From: domibel at debian.org (Dominique Belhachemi) Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2011 14:39:41 -0400 Subject: [Ctk-developers] CTK license and copyright In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Jc, The license/copyright information for the files below is missing. Do you want to add those information? Thanks Dominique ./Plugins/org.commontk.dah.core/Testing/Cpp/ctkDicomObjectLocatorCacheTest1.cpp ./Plugins/org.commontk.dah.core/Testing/Cpp/ctkDicomAppHostingTypesTest1.cpp ./Plugins/org.commontk.qtmobility.service/ctkQtMobilityServiceActivator_p.h ./Plugins/org.commontk.qtmobility.service/ctkQtMobilityServiceActivator.cpp ./Plugins/org.commontk.eventbus/ctkEventBusImpl_p.h ./Plugins/org.commontk.eventbus/ctkEventBusImpl.cpp ./Plugins/org.commontk.eventbus/ctkEventBusPlugin_p.h ./Plugins/org.commontk.eventbus/ctkEventHandlerWrapper_p.h ./Plugins/org.commontk.eventbus/ctkEventBusPlugin.cpp ./Libs/Visualization/VTK/Core/vtkLightBoxRendererManager.h ./Libs/Visualization/VTK/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkVTKObjectEventsObserverTest1.cpp ./Libs/Visualization/VTK/Core/Testing/Cpp/vtkLightBoxRendererManagerTest1.cpp ./Libs/Visualization/VTK/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkVTKObjectTestHelper.cpp ./Libs/Visualization/VTK/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkVTKConnectionTest1.cpp ./Libs/Visualization/VTK/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkVTKObjectTestHelper.h ./Libs/Visualization/VTK/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkVTKObjectTest1.cpp ./Libs/Visualization/VTK/Core/vtkLightBoxRendererManager.cpp ./Libs/Scripting/Python/Core/Python/qt/__init__.py ./Libs/Core/CMake/TestBFD/TestBFD.cpp ./Libs/Core/ctkCommandLineParser.cpp ./Libs/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkBinaryFileDescriptorTestHelper.cpp ./Libs/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkCommandLineParserTest1.cpp ./Libs/Core/ctkPimpl.h ./Libs/Core/ctkCommandLineParser.h ./Libs/DICOM/Widgets/ctkDICOMQueryWidget.cpp ./Libs/DICOM/Widgets/Testing/Cpp/ctkDICOMImageTest1.cpp ./Libs/DICOM/Core/ctkDICOMPersonName.h ./Libs/DICOM/Core/ctkDICOMDataset.cpp ./Libs/DICOM/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkDICOMTest1.cpp ./Libs/DICOM/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkDICOMTesterTest2.cpp ./Libs/DICOM/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkDICOMTesterTest1.cpp ./Libs/DICOM/Core/ctkDICOMPersonName.cpp ./Applications/Testing/Cpp/ctkDICOMApplicationTest1.cpp ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/ctkSimplePythonShellMain.cpp ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/ctkSimplePythonQtDecorators.h ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/ctkTestWrappedQInvokable.h ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/ctkSimplePythonManager.h ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/ctkTestWrappedQListOfVTKObject.h ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/Testing/Python/derivedQWidgetTest.py ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/Testing/Python/wrappedVTKSlotTest.py ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/Testing/Python/wrappedQPropertyTest.py ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/Testing/Python/vtkPythonSmoke.py ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/Testing/Python/wrappedQInvokableTest.py ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/Testing/Python/wrappedSlotTest.py ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/Testing/Python/ctkWidgetsTest.py ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/Testing/Python/wrappedVTKQInvokableTest.py ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/ctkTestWrappedSlot.h ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/ctkTestWrappedVTKSlot.h ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/ctkTestWrappedQProperty.h ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/Python/ctkSimplePythonShell.py ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/ctkTestWrappedVTKQInvokable.h On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Jean-Christophe Fillion-Robin wrote: > Hi Dominique, > > Please review the following topic: > ? https://github.com/jcfr/CTK/compare/master...fix-license-header > > 788f261 Use URL to refer to ParaView license version 1.2 > d4b55ab Fix indent in "Module" attribute associated with Paraview license > header > 681c958 ctkBinaryFileDescriptor - Remove BWH Copyright year and fix indent > 20cc5c8 Update license header associated with ctkVTKThumbnailViewTest1 > 56041fa Update license header associated with PythonQtDecorators > > Thanks > Jc > > > > On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Stephen Aylward > wrote: >> >> Hi Dominique, >> >> Thanks for asking and checking the files. >> >> All of CTK is suppose to be under the Apache 2.0 license. ? If you >> find files with any other licence, please let us know. ? We will fix >> them immediately. >> >> Regarding the holder of the copyright - I believe we decided that >> there would be no single copyright holder for CTK. ?The files are held >> by the individual contributors and/or their institutions. ? This is >> not how I would prefer things, because it creates an impression of >> complex ownership (whereas the Apache license assures the code will >> always be free for commercial and non-commercial use, and without >> patent restrictions to the best of our knowledge). >> >> The CTK members should probably re-address copyright assignments. ? I >> suggest we have the assignment go to the Insight Software Consortium >> (ISC) or some other independent entity. ? Hans Johnson at U of Iowa is >> the current president of the ISC, and he could ask the ISC board to >> accept CTK as an ISC-sponsored toolkit. ? More info on the ISC is at: >> http://insightsoftwareconsortium.org/ >> >> Stephen >> >> >> >> On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Dominique Belhachemi >> wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > I try to figure out whether or not the CTK source code can be >> > distributed. Now I am having a couple of questions. >> > >> > - Some files in the CTK repository are covered by the ParaView license >> > version 1.2. Is it possible to add the referenced file >> > 'License_v1.2.txt' to the repository? >> > >> > - The Slicer license is missing as well. I found some statements which >> > points to dead links: >> > ?"See Doc/copyright/copyright.txt >> > ?or http://www.slicer.org/copyright/copyright.txt for details." >> > >> > - Who is the main copyright holder of CTK? >> > >> > Thanks >> > Dominique >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Ctk-developers mailing list >> > Ctk-developers at commontk.org >> > http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> >> ============================== >> Stephen R. Aylward, Ph.D. >> Director of Medical Imaging Research >> Kitware, Inc. - North Carolina Office >> http://www.kitware.com >> stephen.aylward (Skype) >> (919) 969-6990 x300 >> _______________________________________________ >> Ctk-developers mailing list >> Ctk-developers at commontk.org >> http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers > > > > -- > +1 919 869 8849 > > From stephen.aylward at kitware.com Sat Jul 9 18:41:49 2011 From: stephen.aylward at kitware.com (Stephen Aylward) Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2011 14:41:49 -0400 Subject: [Ctk-developers] CTK license and copyright In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, Ok, we're getting way off course here. Like we did with ITK, we can have submitters transfer copyrights to the ISC or whatever entity we decide. Or we can go with multiple copyrights. Again, really not important - as long as the license is appropriate. Dominque raises several good points regarding confusion arising when multiple licenses are used, how to handle bug fixes contributed by others, using non-standard licenses that only appear on webpages and that may be arbitrarily changed and that are not under revision control, and more. The points raise by Dominique and the fact that we also need to address patents is what led ITK and the ISC to adopt the Apache 2.0 license. It covers contributed bug fixes, patents, etc etc. On an email exchange that began 4/9/2010, we agreed that we would used the Apache 2.0 license. The email chain was begun by Luis. We received agreement from Aylward, Tarbox, Kikinis, Viceconte, Lorensen, Zelzer, and Pieper. We should review the code to make sure it is being consistently applied. s On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 2:14 PM, Luis Ibanez wrote: > Julien, > > Removing a copyright notice is a criminal offense > (a misdemeanor) under current US Copyright Laws. > > --------------------------------------------------- > > http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html > > Title 17, Chapter 5, > ? 506. Criminal offenses: > > > "(c) Fraudulent Copyright Notice. ? Any person who, with fraudulent > intent, places on any article a notice of copyright or words of the > same purport that such person knows to be false, or who, with > fraudulent intent, publicly distributes or imports for public > distribution any article bearing such notice or words that such person > knows to be false, shall be fined not more than $2,500. > > (d) Fraudulent Removal of Copyright Notice. ? Any person who, with > fraudulent intent, removes or alters any notice of copyright appearing > on a copy of a copyrighted work shall be fined not more than $2,500. > > (e) False Representation. ? Any person who knowingly makes a false > representation of a material fact in the application for copyright > registration provided for by section 409, or in any written statement > filed in connection with the application, shall be fined not more than > $2,500. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > When files are copy/pasted or moved between > projects, their original copyright notices must > be kept in place. ?It is customary (and legal) > to add the copyright notice of the new project > above the original copyright notice. > > The new project will hold the copyright of the > modifications made to the file (if any), while the > copyright of the original file content remains with > the initial project. > > > Files can only moved between projects when: > > A) The license of the source project is compatible > ? ? with the license of the destination project, or > > B) When the copyright holder of the first project > ? ? transfers the copyright to the second project, or > > C) When the copyright holder of the first project > ? ? relicenses the file to the second project. > > > The Best practice is to keep a trace of all these > transactions in the NOTICE file at the top of the > project directory. > > See for example: > https://github.com/Kitware/ITK/blob/master/NOTICE > > > ? ? Luis > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 11:42 AM, Julien Finet wrote: >> Hi Stephen, >> Some files in CTK have been a direct work over ParaView or Slicer files. >> I don't think their copyright policy allow us to take their rights, so we >> can't just remove their copyrights, can we ? >> It is allowed to have 2 copyrights for 1 file, isn't it? >> Shall we have a "Copyrights" directory where we have all the license files ? >> Please educate me on the best practice here. >> Thanks, >> Julien. >> >> On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Stephen Aylward >> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Dominique, >>> >>> Thanks for asking and checking the files. >>> >>> All of CTK is suppose to be under the Apache 2.0 license. ? If you >>> find files with any other licence, please let us know. ? We will fix >>> them immediately. >>> >>> Regarding the holder of the copyright - I believe we decided that >>> there would be no single copyright holder for CTK. ?The files are held >>> by the individual contributors and/or their institutions. ? This is >>> not how I would prefer things, because it creates an impression of >>> complex ownership (whereas the Apache license assures the code will >>> always be free for commercial and non-commercial use, and without >>> patent restrictions to the best of our knowledge). >>> >>> The CTK members should probably re-address copyright assignments. ? I >>> suggest we have the assignment go to the Insight Software Consortium >>> (ISC) or some other independent entity. ? Hans Johnson at U of Iowa is >>> the current president of the ISC, and he could ask the ISC board to >>> accept CTK as an ISC-sponsored toolkit. ? More info on the ISC is at: >>> http://insightsoftwareconsortium.org/ >>> >>> Stephen >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Dominique Belhachemi >>> wrote: >>> > Hi, >>> > >>> > I try to figure out whether or not the CTK source code can be >>> > distributed. Now I am having a couple of questions. >>> > >>> > - Some files in the CTK repository are covered by the ParaView license >>> > version 1.2. Is it possible to add the referenced file >>> > 'License_v1.2.txt' to the repository? >>> > >>> > - The Slicer license is missing as well. I found some statements which >>> > points to dead links: >>> > ?"See Doc/copyright/copyright.txt >>> > ?or http://www.slicer.org/copyright/copyright.txt for details." >>> > >>> > - Who is the main copyright holder of CTK? >>> > >>> > Thanks >>> > Dominique >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > Ctk-developers mailing list >>> > Ctk-developers at commontk.org >>> > http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers >>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> ============================== >>> Stephen R. Aylward, Ph.D. >>> Director of Medical Imaging Research >>> Kitware, Inc. - North Carolina Office >>> http://www.kitware.com >>> stephen.aylward (Skype) >>> (919) 969-6990 x300 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Ctk-developers mailing list >>> Ctk-developers at commontk.org >>> http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Ctk-developers mailing list >> Ctk-developers at commontk.org >> http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers >> >> > -- ============================== Stephen R. Aylward, Ph.D. Director of Medical Imaging Research Kitware, Inc. - North Carolina Office http://www.kitware.com stephen.aylward (Skype) (919) 969-6990 x300 From jchris.fillionr at kitware.com Sat Jul 9 23:14:30 2011 From: jchris.fillionr at kitware.com (Jean-Christophe Fillion-Robin) Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2011 19:14:30 -0400 Subject: [Ctk-developers] CTK license and copyright In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Folks, I added a license on all *.h and *.cpp files. See https://github.com/jcfr/CTK/compare/master...fix-license-header //----------------------------------- Note: I added the appropriate license using the following script to determine the first author. for i in `cat headers.txt`; \ do a=`git log --follow --format="%an" $i | tail -n 1`;\ echo "$a --- $i"; \ done //----------------------------------- Few questions: * What is the best practice regarding python script ? How should we integrate the license ? docstring, ... ? * The files authored by Steve Pieper mention "Kitware, Inc." in the copyright. Steve> I believe the license in these files is a byproduct of copy/paste. Do you want to keep it like that of should we change it ? Would you prefer "Isomics, Inc." instead ? To get the list of files authored by Steve Pieper, the following could be done: for i in `find . -type f -path '.git' -prune -o -print`; \ do a=`git log --follow --format="%an" $i | tail -n 1`; echo "$a --- $i"; \ done | ack Pieper Thanks Jc On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 2:39 PM, Dominique Belhachemi wrote: > Hi Jc, > > The license/copyright information for the files below is missing. Do > you want to add those information? > > Thanks > Dominique > > > > ./Plugins/org.commontk.dah.core/Testing/Cpp/ctkDicomObjectLocatorCacheTest1.cpp > > ./Plugins/org.commontk.dah.core/Testing/Cpp/ctkDicomAppHostingTypesTest1.cpp > ./Plugins/org.commontk.qtmobility.service/ctkQtMobilityServiceActivator_p.h > ./Plugins/org.commontk.qtmobility.service/ctkQtMobilityServiceActivator.cpp > ./Plugins/org.commontk.eventbus/ctkEventBusImpl_p.h > ./Plugins/org.commontk.eventbus/ctkEventBusImpl.cpp > ./Plugins/org.commontk.eventbus/ctkEventBusPlugin_p.h > ./Plugins/org.commontk.eventbus/ctkEventHandlerWrapper_p.h > ./Plugins/org.commontk.eventbus/ctkEventBusPlugin.cpp > => Done > ./Libs/Visualization/VTK/Core/vtkLightBoxRendererManager.h > ./Libs/Visualization/VTK/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkVTKObjectEventsObserverTest1.cpp > > ./Libs/Visualization/VTK/Core/Testing/Cpp/vtkLightBoxRendererManagerTest1.cpp > ./Libs/Visualization/VTK/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkVTKObjectTestHelper.cpp > ./Libs/Visualization/VTK/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkVTKConnectionTest1.cpp > ./Libs/Visualization/VTK/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkVTKObjectTestHelper.h > ./Libs/Visualization/VTK/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkVTKObjectTest1.cpp > ./Libs/Visualization/VTK/Core/vtkLightBoxRendererManager.cpp > => Done > ./Libs/Scripting/Python/Core/Python/qt/__init__.py > => No license added ... not sure it if make sens to add one ... > ./Libs/Core/CMake/TestBFD/TestBFD.cpp > ./Libs/Core/ctkCommandLineParser.cpp ./Libs/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkBinaryFileDescriptorTestHelper.cpp > ./Libs/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkCommandLineParserTest1.cpp > ./Libs/Core/ctkPimpl.h > ./Libs/Core/ctkCommandLineParser.h > => Done > ./Libs/DICOM/Widgets/ctkDICOMQueryWidget.cpp > ./Libs/DICOM/Widgets/Testing/Cpp/ctkDICOMImageTest1.cpp > ./Libs/DICOM/Core/ctkDICOMPersonName.h > ./Libs/DICOM/Core/ctkDICOMDataset.cpp > ./Libs/DICOM/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkDICOMTest1.cpp > ./Libs/DICOM/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkDICOMTesterTest2.cpp > ./Libs/DICOM/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkDICOMTesterTest1.cpp > ./Libs/DICOM/Core/ctkDICOMPersonName.cpp => Done > ./Applications/Testing/Cpp/ctkDICOMApplicationTest1.cpp > ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/ctkSimplePythonShellMain.cpp > ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/ctkSimplePythonQtDecorators.h > ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/ctkTestWrappedQInvokable.h > ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/ctkSimplePythonManager.h > ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/ctkTestWrappedQListOfVTKObject.h > => Done > ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/Testing/Python/derivedQWidgetTest.py > ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/Testing/Python/wrappedVTKSlotTest.py > ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/Testing/Python/wrappedQPropertyTest.py > ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/Testing/Python/vtkPythonSmoke.py > ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/Testing/Python/wrappedQInvokableTest.py > ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/Testing/Python/wrappedSlotTest.py > ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/Testing/Python/ctkWidgetsTest.py > > ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/Testing/Python/wrappedVTKQInvokableTest.py > => No license added ... not sure it if make sens to add one ... > ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/ctkTestWrappedSlot.h > ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/ctkTestWrappedVTKSlot.h > ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/ctkTestWrappedQProperty.h > ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/Python/ctkSimplePythonShell.py > ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/ctkTestWrappedVTKQInvokable.h > => Done > > > On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Jean-Christophe Fillion-Robin > wrote: > > Hi Dominique, > > > > Please review the following topic: > > https://github.com/jcfr/CTK/compare/master...fix-license-header > > > > 788f261 Use URL to refer to ParaView license version 1.2 > > d4b55ab Fix indent in "Module" attribute associated with Paraview license > > header > > 681c958 ctkBinaryFileDescriptor - Remove BWH Copyright year and fix > indent > > 20cc5c8 Update license header associated with ctkVTKThumbnailViewTest1 > > 56041fa Update license header associated with PythonQtDecorators > > > > Thanks > > Jc > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Stephen Aylward > > wrote: > >> > >> Hi Dominique, > >> > >> Thanks for asking and checking the files. > >> > >> All of CTK is suppose to be under the Apache 2.0 license. If you > >> find files with any other licence, please let us know. We will fix > >> them immediately. > >> > >> Regarding the holder of the copyright - I believe we decided that > >> there would be no single copyright holder for CTK. The files are held > >> by the individual contributors and/or their institutions. This is > >> not how I would prefer things, because it creates an impression of > >> complex ownership (whereas the Apache license assures the code will > >> always be free for commercial and non-commercial use, and without > >> patent restrictions to the best of our knowledge). > >> > >> The CTK members should probably re-address copyright assignments. I > >> suggest we have the assignment go to the Insight Software Consortium > >> (ISC) or some other independent entity. Hans Johnson at U of Iowa is > >> the current president of the ISC, and he could ask the ISC board to > >> accept CTK as an ISC-sponsored toolkit. More info on the ISC is at: > >> http://insightsoftwareconsortium.org/ > >> > >> Stephen > >> > >> > >> > >> On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Dominique Belhachemi > >> wrote: > >> > Hi, > >> > > >> > I try to figure out whether or not the CTK source code can be > >> > distributed. Now I am having a couple of questions. > >> > > >> > - Some files in the CTK repository are covered by the ParaView license > >> > version 1.2. Is it possible to add the referenced file > >> > 'License_v1.2.txt' to the repository? > >> > > >> > - The Slicer license is missing as well. I found some statements which > >> > points to dead links: > >> > "See Doc/copyright/copyright.txt > >> > or http://www.slicer.org/copyright/copyright.txt for details." > >> > > >> > - Who is the main copyright holder of CTK? > >> > > >> > Thanks > >> > Dominique > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > Ctk-developers mailing list > >> > Ctk-developers at commontk.org > >> > http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> > >> ============================== > >> Stephen R. Aylward, Ph.D. > >> Director of Medical Imaging Research > >> Kitware, Inc. - North Carolina Office > >> http://www.kitware.com > >> stephen.aylward (Skype) > >> (919) 969-6990 x300 > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Ctk-developers mailing list > >> Ctk-developers at commontk.org > >> http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers > > > > > > > > -- > > +1 919 869 8849 > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ctk-developers mailing list > Ctk-developers at commontk.org > http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers > -- +1 919 869 8849 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jchris.fillionr at kitware.com Sat Jul 9 23:22:59 2011 From: jchris.fillionr at kitware.com (Jean-Christophe Fillion-Robin) Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2011 19:22:59 -0400 Subject: [Ctk-developers] CTK license and copyright In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: To be consistent across all files, just pushed commit 0d0ec63a1con my topic branch Use http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt instead of http://www.commontk.org/LICENSE See https://github.com/jcfr/CTK/commit/0d0ec63a1ca05b1509926d3091ffa13ed08e903a Does it still make sens to keep the following URL: http://commontk.org/LICENSE ? Should that URL redirect to http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt ? Thanks Jc On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 7:14 PM, Jean-Christophe Fillion-Robin < jchris.fillionr at kitware.com> wrote: > Hi Folks, > > I added a license on all *.h and *.cpp files. > > See https://github.com/jcfr/CTK/compare/master...fix-license-header > > //----------------------------------- > Note: I added the appropriate license using the following script to > determine the first author. > > for i in `cat headers.txt`; \ > do a=`git log --follow --format="%an" $i | tail -n 1`;\ > echo "$a --- $i"; \ > done > > //----------------------------------- > Few questions: > > * What is the best practice regarding python script ? How should we > integrate the license ? docstring, ... ? > > * The files authored by Steve Pieper mention "Kitware, Inc." in the > copyright. > > Steve> I believe the license in these files is a byproduct of copy/paste. > Do you want to keep it like that of should we change it ? Would you prefer > "Isomics, Inc." instead ? > > To get the list of files authored by Steve Pieper, the following could be > done: > > for i in `find . -type f -path '.git' -prune -o -print`; \ > do a=`git log --follow --format="%an" $i | tail -n 1`; echo "$a --- $i"; > \ > done | ack Pieper > > Thanks > Jc > > On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 2:39 PM, Dominique Belhachemi wrote: > >> Hi Jc, >> >> The license/copyright information for the files below is missing. Do >> you want to add those information? >> >> Thanks >> Dominique >> >> >> >> ./Plugins/org.commontk.dah.core/Testing/Cpp/ctkDicomObjectLocatorCacheTest1.cpp >> >> ./Plugins/org.commontk.dah.core/Testing/Cpp/ctkDicomAppHostingTypesTest1.cpp >> >> ./Plugins/org.commontk.qtmobility.service/ctkQtMobilityServiceActivator_p.h >> >> ./Plugins/org.commontk.qtmobility.service/ctkQtMobilityServiceActivator.cpp >> ./Plugins/org.commontk.eventbus/ctkEventBusImpl_p.h >> ./Plugins/org.commontk.eventbus/ctkEventBusImpl.cpp >> ./Plugins/org.commontk.eventbus/ctkEventBusPlugin_p.h >> ./Plugins/org.commontk.eventbus/ctkEventHandlerWrapper_p.h >> ./Plugins/org.commontk.eventbus/ctkEventBusPlugin.cpp >> > => Done > > >> ./Libs/Visualization/VTK/Core/vtkLightBoxRendererManager.h >> > >> ./Libs/Visualization/VTK/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkVTKObjectEventsObserverTest1.cpp >> >> ./Libs/Visualization/VTK/Core/Testing/Cpp/vtkLightBoxRendererManagerTest1.cpp >> ./Libs/Visualization/VTK/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkVTKObjectTestHelper.cpp >> ./Libs/Visualization/VTK/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkVTKConnectionTest1.cpp >> ./Libs/Visualization/VTK/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkVTKObjectTestHelper.h >> ./Libs/Visualization/VTK/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkVTKObjectTest1.cpp >> ./Libs/Visualization/VTK/Core/vtkLightBoxRendererManager.cpp >> > => Done > > > >> ./Libs/Scripting/Python/Core/Python/qt/__init__.py >> > => No license added ... not sure it if make sens to add one ... > > >> ./Libs/Core/CMake/TestBFD/TestBFD.cpp >> > ./Libs/Core/ctkCommandLineParser.cpp > > ./Libs/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkBinaryFileDescriptorTestHelper.cpp >> ./Libs/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkCommandLineParserTest1.cpp >> ./Libs/Core/ctkPimpl.h >> ./Libs/Core/ctkCommandLineParser.h >> > => Done > > >> ./Libs/DICOM/Widgets/ctkDICOMQueryWidget.cpp >> ./Libs/DICOM/Widgets/Testing/Cpp/ctkDICOMImageTest1.cpp >> ./Libs/DICOM/Core/ctkDICOMPersonName.h >> ./Libs/DICOM/Core/ctkDICOMDataset.cpp >> ./Libs/DICOM/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkDICOMTest1.cpp >> ./Libs/DICOM/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkDICOMTesterTest2.cpp >> ./Libs/DICOM/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkDICOMTesterTest1.cpp >> ./Libs/DICOM/Core/ctkDICOMPersonName.cpp > > => Done > > >> ./Applications/Testing/Cpp/ctkDICOMApplicationTest1.cpp >> > ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/ctkSimplePythonShellMain.cpp >> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/ctkSimplePythonQtDecorators.h >> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/ctkTestWrappedQInvokable.h >> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/ctkSimplePythonManager.h >> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/ctkTestWrappedQListOfVTKObject.h >> > => Done > > >> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/Testing/Python/derivedQWidgetTest.py >> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/Testing/Python/wrappedVTKSlotTest.py >> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/Testing/Python/wrappedQPropertyTest.py >> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/Testing/Python/vtkPythonSmoke.py >> >> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/Testing/Python/wrappedQInvokableTest.py >> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/Testing/Python/wrappedSlotTest.py >> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/Testing/Python/ctkWidgetsTest.py >> >> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/Testing/Python/wrappedVTKQInvokableTest.py >> > => No license added ... not sure it if make sens to add one ... > > >> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/ctkTestWrappedSlot.h >> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/ctkTestWrappedVTKSlot.h >> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/ctkTestWrappedQProperty.h >> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/Python/ctkSimplePythonShell.py >> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/ctkTestWrappedVTKQInvokable.h >> > => Done > >> >> >> On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Jean-Christophe Fillion-Robin >> wrote: >> > Hi Dominique, >> > >> > Please review the following topic: >> > https://github.com/jcfr/CTK/compare/master...fix-license-header >> > >> > 788f261 Use URL to refer to ParaView license version 1.2 >> > d4b55ab Fix indent in "Module" attribute associated with Paraview >> license >> > header >> > 681c958 ctkBinaryFileDescriptor - Remove BWH Copyright year and fix >> indent >> > 20cc5c8 Update license header associated with ctkVTKThumbnailViewTest1 >> > 56041fa Update license header associated with PythonQtDecorators >> > >> > Thanks >> > Jc >> > >> > >> > >> > On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Stephen Aylward >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> Hi Dominique, >> >> >> >> Thanks for asking and checking the files. >> >> >> >> All of CTK is suppose to be under the Apache 2.0 license. If you >> >> find files with any other licence, please let us know. We will fix >> >> them immediately. >> >> >> >> Regarding the holder of the copyright - I believe we decided that >> >> there would be no single copyright holder for CTK. The files are held >> >> by the individual contributors and/or their institutions. This is >> >> not how I would prefer things, because it creates an impression of >> >> complex ownership (whereas the Apache license assures the code will >> >> always be free for commercial and non-commercial use, and without >> >> patent restrictions to the best of our knowledge). >> >> >> >> The CTK members should probably re-address copyright assignments. I >> >> suggest we have the assignment go to the Insight Software Consortium >> >> (ISC) or some other independent entity. Hans Johnson at U of Iowa is >> >> the current president of the ISC, and he could ask the ISC board to >> >> accept CTK as an ISC-sponsored toolkit. More info on the ISC is at: >> >> http://insightsoftwareconsortium.org/ >> >> >> >> Stephen >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Dominique Belhachemi >> >> wrote: >> >> > Hi, >> >> > >> >> > I try to figure out whether or not the CTK source code can be >> >> > distributed. Now I am having a couple of questions. >> >> > >> >> > - Some files in the CTK repository are covered by the ParaView >> license >> >> > version 1.2. Is it possible to add the referenced file >> >> > 'License_v1.2.txt' to the repository? >> >> > >> >> > - The Slicer license is missing as well. I found some statements >> which >> >> > points to dead links: >> >> > "See Doc/copyright/copyright.txt >> >> > or http://www.slicer.org/copyright/copyright.txt for details." >> >> > >> >> > - Who is the main copyright holder of CTK? >> >> > >> >> > Thanks >> >> > Dominique >> >> > _______________________________________________ >> >> > Ctk-developers mailing list >> >> > Ctk-developers at commontk.org >> >> > http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> >> ============================== >> >> Stephen R. Aylward, Ph.D. >> >> Director of Medical Imaging Research >> >> Kitware, Inc. - North Carolina Office >> >> http://www.kitware.com >> >> stephen.aylward (Skype) >> >> (919) 969-6990 x300 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> Ctk-developers mailing list >> >> Ctk-developers at commontk.org >> >> http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > +1 919 869 8849 >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> Ctk-developers mailing list >> Ctk-developers at commontk.org >> http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers >> > > > > -- > +1 919 869 8849 > > -- +1 919 869 8849 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From julien.finet at kitware.com Sun Jul 10 00:26:25 2011 From: julien.finet at kitware.com (Julien Finet) Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2011 20:26:25 -0400 Subject: [Ctk-developers] CTK license and copyright In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9A018C52-3823-4215-830D-60C4E62AE2AD@kitware.com> It seems that redirecting on ctk licence was giving more flexibility, just in case we want to change to apache 3 at some point :-) Julien. On Jul 9, 2011, at 7:22 PM, Jean-Christophe Fillion-Robin wrote: > To be consistent across all files, just pushed commit 0d0ec63a1c on > my topic branch > Use http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt instead of http://www.commontk.org/LICENSE > See https://github.com/jcfr/CTK/commit/0d0ec63a1ca05b1509926d3091ffa13ed08e903a > > Does it still make sens to keep the following URL: http://commontk.org/LICENSE > ? > > Should that URL redirect to http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt > ? > > Thanks > Jc > > > On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 7:14 PM, Jean-Christophe Fillion-Robin > wrote: > Hi Folks, > > I added a license on all *.h and *.cpp files. > > See https://github.com/jcfr/CTK/compare/master...fix-license-header > > //----------------------------------- > Note: I added the appropriate license using the following script to > determine the first author. > > for i in `cat headers.txt`; \ > do a=`git log --follow --format="%an" $i | tail -n 1`;\ > echo "$a --- $i"; \ > done > > //----------------------------------- > Few questions: > > * What is the best practice regarding python script ? How should we > integrate the license ? docstring, ... ? > > * The files authored by Steve Pieper mention "Kitware, Inc." in the > copyright. > > Steve> I believe the license in these files is a byproduct of copy/ > paste. Do you want to keep it like that of should we change it ? > Would you prefer "Isomics, Inc." instead ? > > To get the list of files authored by Steve Pieper, the following > could be done: > > for i in `find . -type f -path '.git' -prune -o -print`; \ > do a=`git log --follow --format="%an" $i | tail -n 1`; echo "$a > --- $i"; \ > done | ack Pieper > > Thanks > Jc > > On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 2:39 PM, Dominique Belhachemi > wrote: > Hi Jc, > > The license/copyright information for the files below is missing. Do > you want to add those information? > > Thanks > Dominique > > > ./Plugins/org.commontk.dah.core/Testing/Cpp/ > ctkDicomObjectLocatorCacheTest1.cpp > ./Plugins/org.commontk.dah.core/Testing/Cpp/ > ctkDicomAppHostingTypesTest1.cpp > ./Plugins/org.commontk.qtmobility.service/ > ctkQtMobilityServiceActivator_p.h > ./Plugins/org.commontk.qtmobility.service/ > ctkQtMobilityServiceActivator.cpp > ./Plugins/org.commontk.eventbus/ctkEventBusImpl_p.h > ./Plugins/org.commontk.eventbus/ctkEventBusImpl.cpp > ./Plugins/org.commontk.eventbus/ctkEventBusPlugin_p.h > ./Plugins/org.commontk.eventbus/ctkEventHandlerWrapper_p.h > ./Plugins/org.commontk.eventbus/ctkEventBusPlugin.cpp > => Done > > ./Libs/Visualization/VTK/Core/vtkLightBoxRendererManager.h > ./Libs/Visualization/VTK/Core/Testing/Cpp/ > ctkVTKObjectEventsObserverTest1.cpp > ./Libs/Visualization/VTK/Core/Testing/Cpp/ > vtkLightBoxRendererManagerTest1.cpp > ./Libs/Visualization/VTK/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkVTKObjectTestHelper.cpp > ./Libs/Visualization/VTK/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkVTKConnectionTest1.cpp > ./Libs/Visualization/VTK/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkVTKObjectTestHelper.h > ./Libs/Visualization/VTK/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkVTKObjectTest1.cpp > ./Libs/Visualization/VTK/Core/vtkLightBoxRendererManager.cpp > => Done > > > ./Libs/Scripting/Python/Core/Python/qt/__init__.py > => No license added ... not sure it if make sens to add one ... > > ./Libs/Core/CMake/TestBFD/TestBFD.cpp > ./Libs/Core/ctkCommandLineParser.cpp > ./Libs/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkBinaryFileDescriptorTestHelper.cpp > ./Libs/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkCommandLineParserTest1.cpp > ./Libs/Core/ctkPimpl.h > ./Libs/Core/ctkCommandLineParser.h > => Done > > ./Libs/DICOM/Widgets/ctkDICOMQueryWidget.cpp > ./Libs/DICOM/Widgets/Testing/Cpp/ctkDICOMImageTest1.cpp > ./Libs/DICOM/Core/ctkDICOMPersonName.h > ./Libs/DICOM/Core/ctkDICOMDataset.cpp > ./Libs/DICOM/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkDICOMTest1.cpp > ./Libs/DICOM/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkDICOMTesterTest2.cpp > ./Libs/DICOM/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkDICOMTesterTest1.cpp > ./Libs/DICOM/Core/ctkDICOMPersonName.cpp > => Done > > ./Applications/Testing/Cpp/ctkDICOMApplicationTest1.cpp > ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/ctkSimplePythonShellMain.cpp > ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/ctkSimplePythonQtDecorators.h > ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/ctkTestWrappedQInvokable.h > ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/ctkSimplePythonManager.h > ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/ctkTestWrappedQListOfVTKObject.h > => Done > > ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/Testing/Python/ > derivedQWidgetTest.py > ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/Testing/Python/ > wrappedVTKSlotTest.py > ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/Testing/Python/ > wrappedQPropertyTest.py > ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/Testing/Python/vtkPythonSmoke.py > ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/Testing/Python/ > wrappedQInvokableTest.py > ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/Testing/Python/wrappedSlotTest.py > ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/Testing/Python/ctkWidgetsTest.py > ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/Testing/Python/ > wrappedVTKQInvokableTest.py > => No license added ... not sure it if make sens to add one ... > > ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/ctkTestWrappedSlot.h > ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/ctkTestWrappedVTKSlot.h > ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/ctkTestWrappedQProperty.h > ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/Python/ctkSimplePythonShell.py > ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/ctkTestWrappedVTKQInvokable.h > => Done > > > On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Jean-Christophe Fillion-Robin > wrote: > > Hi Dominique, > > > > Please review the following topic: > > https://github.com/jcfr/CTK/compare/master...fix-license-header > > > > 788f261 Use URL to refer to ParaView license version 1.2 > > d4b55ab Fix indent in "Module" attribute associated with Paraview > license > > header > > 681c958 ctkBinaryFileDescriptor - Remove BWH Copyright year and > fix indent > > 20cc5c8 Update license header associated with > ctkVTKThumbnailViewTest1 > > 56041fa Update license header associated with PythonQtDecorators > > > > Thanks > > Jc > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Stephen Aylward > > wrote: > >> > >> Hi Dominique, > >> > >> Thanks for asking and checking the files. > >> > >> All of CTK is suppose to be under the Apache 2.0 license. If you > >> find files with any other licence, please let us know. We will > fix > >> them immediately. > >> > >> Regarding the holder of the copyright - I believe we decided that > >> there would be no single copyright holder for CTK. The files are > held > >> by the individual contributors and/or their institutions. This is > >> not how I would prefer things, because it creates an impression of > >> complex ownership (whereas the Apache license assures the code will > >> always be free for commercial and non-commercial use, and without > >> patent restrictions to the best of our knowledge). > >> > >> The CTK members should probably re-address copyright > assignments. I > >> suggest we have the assignment go to the Insight Software > Consortium > >> (ISC) or some other independent entity. Hans Johnson at U of > Iowa is > >> the current president of the ISC, and he could ask the ISC board to > >> accept CTK as an ISC-sponsored toolkit. More info on the ISC is > at: > >> http://insightsoftwareconsortium.org/ > >> > >> Stephen > >> > >> > >> > >> On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Dominique Belhachemi > >> wrote: > >> > Hi, > >> > > >> > I try to figure out whether or not the CTK source code can be > >> > distributed. Now I am having a couple of questions. > >> > > >> > - Some files in the CTK repository are covered by the ParaView > license > >> > version 1.2. Is it possible to add the referenced file > >> > 'License_v1.2.txt' to the repository? > >> > > >> > - The Slicer license is missing as well. I found some > statements which > >> > points to dead links: > >> > "See Doc/copyright/copyright.txt > >> > or http://www.slicer.org/copyright/copyright.txt for details." > >> > > >> > - Who is the main copyright holder of CTK? > >> > > >> > Thanks > >> > Dominique > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > Ctk-developers mailing list > >> > Ctk-developers at commontk.org > >> > http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> > >> ============================== > >> Stephen R. Aylward, Ph.D. > >> Director of Medical Imaging Research > >> Kitware, Inc. - North Carolina Office > >> http://www.kitware.com > >> stephen.aylward (Skype) > >> (919) 969-6990 x300 > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Ctk-developers mailing list > >> Ctk-developers at commontk.org > >> http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers > > > > > > > > -- > > +1 919 869 8849 > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ctk-developers mailing list > Ctk-developers at commontk.org > http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers > > > > -- > +1 919 869 8849 > > > > > -- > +1 919 869 8849 > > _______________________________________________ > Ctk-developers mailing list > Ctk-developers at commontk.org > http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephen.aylward at kitware.com Sun Jul 10 20:41:16 2011 From: stephen.aylward at kitware.com (Stephen Aylward) Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2011 16:41:16 -0400 Subject: [Ctk-developers] CTK license and copyright In-Reply-To: <9A018C52-3823-4215-830D-60C4E62AE2AD@kitware.com> References: <9A018C52-3823-4215-830D-60C4E62AE2AD@kitware.com> Message-ID: Hi J2 and JC, Thanks for the attention you're paying to this. It is important to get right... Regarding links in code to licenses: The code we are releasing "now" will always be under the Apache 2.0 license. That is, if someone were to copy CTK today, they are bound to the apache 2.0 license when using that code. If we change the license in the future (e.g., to a future apache license version) it would only impact copies of the code released from that point in time forward. The license change cannot be applied to copies of code that people had previously downloaded (e.g., code downloaded today). So, the link in the current code should always point directly to the official repository/place for the apache2.0 license. It specifically should not point to a link that isn't guaranteed to always contain the Apache2.0 license. Hope this helps clarify things. Thanks, Stephen On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 8:26 PM, Julien Finet wrote: > It seems that redirecting on ctk licence was giving more flexibility, > ?just in case we want to change to apache 3 at some point :-) > > Julien. > On Jul 9, 2011, at 7:22 PM, Jean-Christophe Fillion-Robin > wrote: > > To be consistent across all files, just pushed commit 0d0ec63a1c on my topic > branch > > Use http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt instead of > http://www.commontk.org/LICENSE > > See > https://github.com/jcfr/CTK/commit/0d0ec63a1ca05b1509926d3091ffa13ed08e903a > > Does it still make sens to keep the following URL: > http://commontk.org/LICENSE ? > > Should that URL redirect to http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt > ? > > Thanks > Jc > > > On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 7:14 PM, Jean-Christophe Fillion-Robin > wrote: >> >> Hi Folks, >> >> I added a license on all *.h and *.cpp files. >> >> See https://github.com/jcfr/CTK/compare/master...fix-license-header >> >> //----------------------------------- >> Note: I added the appropriate license using the following script to >> determine the first author. >> >> ?for i in `cat headers.txt`; \ >> ? do a=`git log --follow --format="%an" $i? | tail -n 1`;\ >> ? echo "$a --- $i"; \ >> done >> >> //----------------------------------- >> Few questions: >> >> * What is the best practice regarding python script ? How should we >> integrate the license ? docstring, ... ? >> >> * The files authored by Steve Pieper mention "Kitware, Inc." in the >> copyright. >> >> Steve> I believe the license in these files is a byproduct of copy/paste. >> Do you want to keep it like that of should we change it ? Would you prefer >> "Isomics, Inc." instead ? >> >> To get the list of files authored by Steve Pieper, the following could be >> done: >> >> for i in `find . -type f -path '.git' -prune -o -print`; \ >> ? do a=`git log --follow --format="%an" $i? | tail -n 1`; echo "$a --- >> $i"; \ >> done | ack Pieper >> >> Thanks >> Jc >> >> On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 2:39 PM, Dominique Belhachemi >> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Jc, >>> >>> The license/copyright information for the files below is missing. Do >>> you want to add those information? >>> >>> Thanks >>> Dominique >>> >>> >>> >>> ./Plugins/org.commontk.dah.core/Testing/Cpp/ctkDicomObjectLocatorCacheTest1.cpp >>> >>> ./Plugins/org.commontk.dah.core/Testing/Cpp/ctkDicomAppHostingTypesTest1.cpp >>> >>> ./Plugins/org.commontk.qtmobility.service/ctkQtMobilityServiceActivator_p.h >>> >>> ./Plugins/org.commontk.qtmobility.service/ctkQtMobilityServiceActivator.cpp >>> ./Plugins/org.commontk.eventbus/ctkEventBusImpl_p.h >>> ./Plugins/org.commontk.eventbus/ctkEventBusImpl.cpp >>> ./Plugins/org.commontk.eventbus/ctkEventBusPlugin_p.h >>> ./Plugins/org.commontk.eventbus/ctkEventHandlerWrapper_p.h >>> ./Plugins/org.commontk.eventbus/ctkEventBusPlugin.cpp >> >> => Done >> >>> >>> ./Libs/Visualization/VTK/Core/vtkLightBoxRendererManager.h >>> >>> >>> ./Libs/Visualization/VTK/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkVTKObjectEventsObserverTest1.cpp >>> >>> ./Libs/Visualization/VTK/Core/Testing/Cpp/vtkLightBoxRendererManagerTest1.cpp >>> ./Libs/Visualization/VTK/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkVTKObjectTestHelper.cpp >>> ./Libs/Visualization/VTK/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkVTKConnectionTest1.cpp >>> ./Libs/Visualization/VTK/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkVTKObjectTestHelper.h >>> ./Libs/Visualization/VTK/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkVTKObjectTest1.cpp >>> ./Libs/Visualization/VTK/Core/vtkLightBoxRendererManager.cpp >> >> => Done >> >> >>> >>> ./Libs/Scripting/Python/Core/Python/qt/__init__.py >> >> => No license added ... not sure it if make sens to add one ... >> >>> >>> ./Libs/Core/CMake/TestBFD/TestBFD.cpp >>> >>> ./Libs/Core/ctkCommandLineParser.cpp >>> >>> ./Libs/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkBinaryFileDescriptorTestHelper.cpp >>> ./Libs/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkCommandLineParserTest1.cpp >>> ./Libs/Core/ctkPimpl.h >>> ./Libs/Core/ctkCommandLineParser.h >> >> => Done >> >>> >>> ./Libs/DICOM/Widgets/ctkDICOMQueryWidget.cpp >>> ./Libs/DICOM/Widgets/Testing/Cpp/ctkDICOMImageTest1.cpp >>> ./Libs/DICOM/Core/ctkDICOMPersonName.h >>> ./Libs/DICOM/Core/ctkDICOMDataset.cpp >>> ./Libs/DICOM/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkDICOMTest1.cpp >>> ./Libs/DICOM/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkDICOMTesterTest2.cpp >>> ./Libs/DICOM/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkDICOMTesterTest1.cpp >>> ./Libs/DICOM/Core/ctkDICOMPersonName.cpp >> >> => Done >> >>> >>> ./Applications/Testing/Cpp/ctkDICOMApplicationTest1.cpp >>> >>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/ctkSimplePythonShellMain.cpp >>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/ctkSimplePythonQtDecorators.h >>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/ctkTestWrappedQInvokable.h >>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/ctkSimplePythonManager.h >>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/ctkTestWrappedQListOfVTKObject.h >> >> => Done >> >>> >>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/Testing/Python/derivedQWidgetTest.py >>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/Testing/Python/wrappedVTKSlotTest.py >>> >>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/Testing/Python/wrappedQPropertyTest.py >>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/Testing/Python/vtkPythonSmoke.py >>> >>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/Testing/Python/wrappedQInvokableTest.py >>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/Testing/Python/wrappedSlotTest.py >>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/Testing/Python/ctkWidgetsTest.py >>> >>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/Testing/Python/wrappedVTKQInvokableTest.py >> >> => No license added ... not sure it if make sens to add one ... >> >>> >>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/ctkTestWrappedSlot.h >>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/ctkTestWrappedVTKSlot.h >>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/ctkTestWrappedQProperty.h >>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/Python/ctkSimplePythonShell.py >>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/ctkTestWrappedVTKQInvokable.h >> >> => Done >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Jean-Christophe Fillion-Robin >>> wrote: >>> > Hi Dominique, >>> > >>> > Please review the following topic: >>> > ? https://github.com/jcfr/CTK/compare/master...fix-license-header >>> > >>> > 788f261 Use URL to refer to ParaView license version 1.2 >>> > d4b55ab Fix indent in "Module" attribute associated with Paraview >>> > license >>> > header >>> > 681c958 ctkBinaryFileDescriptor - Remove BWH Copyright year and fix >>> > indent >>> > 20cc5c8 Update license header associated with ctkVTKThumbnailViewTest1 >>> > 56041fa Update license header associated with PythonQtDecorators >>> > >>> > Thanks >>> > Jc >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Stephen Aylward >>> > wrote: >>> >> >>> >> Hi Dominique, >>> >> >>> >> Thanks for asking and checking the files. >>> >> >>> >> All of CTK is suppose to be under the Apache 2.0 license. ? If you >>> >> find files with any other licence, please let us know. ? We will fix >>> >> them immediately. >>> >> >>> >> Regarding the holder of the copyright - I believe we decided that >>> >> there would be no single copyright holder for CTK. ?The files are held >>> >> by the individual contributors and/or their institutions. ? This is >>> >> not how I would prefer things, because it creates an impression of >>> >> complex ownership (whereas the Apache license assures the code will >>> >> always be free for commercial and non-commercial use, and without >>> >> patent restrictions to the best of our knowledge). >>> >> >>> >> The CTK members should probably re-address copyright assignments. ? I >>> >> suggest we have the assignment go to the Insight Software Consortium >>> >> (ISC) or some other independent entity. ? Hans Johnson at U of Iowa is >>> >> the current president of the ISC, and he could ask the ISC board to >>> >> accept CTK as an ISC-sponsored toolkit. ? More info on the ISC is at: >>> >> http://insightsoftwareconsortium.org/ >>> >> >>> >> Stephen >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Dominique Belhachemi >>> >> wrote: >>> >> > Hi, >>> >> > >>> >> > I try to figure out whether or not the CTK source code can be >>> >> > distributed. Now I am having a couple of questions. >>> >> > >>> >> > - Some files in the CTK repository are covered by the ParaView >>> >> > license >>> >> > version 1.2. Is it possible to add the referenced file >>> >> > 'License_v1.2.txt' to the repository? >>> >> > >>> >> > - The Slicer license is missing as well. I found some statements >>> >> > which >>> >> > points to dead links: >>> >> > ?"See Doc/copyright/copyright.txt >>> >> > ?or http://www.slicer.org/copyright/copyright.txt for details." >>> >> > >>> >> > - Who is the main copyright holder of CTK? >>> >> > >>> >> > Thanks >>> >> > Dominique >>> >> > _______________________________________________ >>> >> > Ctk-developers mailing list >>> >> > Ctk-developers at commontk.org >>> >> > http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers >>> >> > >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> -- >>> >> >>> >> ============================== >>> >> Stephen R. Aylward, Ph.D. >>> >> Director of Medical Imaging Research >>> >> Kitware, Inc. - North Carolina Office >>> >> http://www.kitware.com >>> >> stephen.aylward (Skype) >>> >> (919) 969-6990 x300 >>> >> _______________________________________________ >>> >> Ctk-developers mailing list >>> >> Ctk-developers at commontk.org >>> >> http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > -- >>> > +1 919 869 8849 >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Ctk-developers mailing list >>> Ctk-developers at commontk.org >>> http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers >> >> >> >> -- >> +1 919 869 8849 >> > > > > -- > +1 919 869 8849 > > _______________________________________________ > Ctk-developers mailing list > Ctk-developers at commontk.org > http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers > > _______________________________________________ > Ctk-developers mailing list > Ctk-developers at commontk.org > http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers > > -- ============================== Stephen R. Aylward, Ph.D. Director of Medical Imaging Research Kitware, Inc. - North Carolina Office http://www.kitware.com stephen.aylward (Skype) (919) 969-6990 x300 From stephen.aylward at kitware.com Sun Jul 10 20:47:25 2011 From: stephen.aylward at kitware.com (Stephen Aylward) Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2011 16:47:25 -0400 Subject: [Ctk-developers] License versus copyright and authorship Message-ID: Hi, One point of clarification - I still strongly believe that CTK code should clearly indicate who are its authors/contributors. That is, if some of the code came from Slicer, it should indicate it. If some of it came from MITK, it should indicate it. If J2 wrote it, it should indicate it. Thanks to use of the Apache 2.0 license, we can independently credit authorship and list other copyright owners when appropriate. Thanks, Stephen -- ============================== Stephen R. Aylward, Ph.D. Director of Medical Imaging Research Kitware, Inc. - North Carolina Office http://www.kitware.com stephen.aylward (Skype) (919) 969-6990 x300 From luis.ibanez at kitware.com Sun Jul 10 21:30:02 2011 From: luis.ibanez at kitware.com (Luis Ibanez) Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2011 17:30:02 -0400 Subject: [Ctk-developers] License versus copyright and authorship In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 4:47 PM, Stephen Aylward wrote: > Hi, > > One point of clarification - I still strongly believe that CTK code > should clearly indicate who are its authors/contributors. ? That is, > if some of the code came from Slicer, it should indicate it. ?If some > of it came from MITK, it should indicate it. ?If J2 wrote it, it > should indicate it. > > Thanks to use of the Apache 2.0 license, we can independently credit > authorship and list other copyright owners when appropriate. > > Thanks, > Stephen > > -- > > ============================== > Stephen R. Aylward, Ph.D. > Director of Medical Imaging Research > Kitware, Inc. - North Carolina Office > http://www.kitware.com > stephen.aylward (Skype) > (919) 969-6990 x300 > _______________________________________________ > Ctk-developers mailing list > Ctk-developers at commontk.org > http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers > ------------------------------------------------------------- Stephen, Crediting initial author(s) is feasible in the first commit of a file, but it becomes impractical as the maintenance of that file is done over time by other developers (as it should be the case in an open source project where wide participation is encouraged). On day #1, one can clearly say that File X is authored by developer M, but 1,000 days later, that file is only 75% by developer M, and now it is also 12% by developer Q, 9% by developers R,..... 0.1% by developer Z... The Statistical Reports generated by the revision control system are better suited for keeping track of authorship and credits. Over time, the file is a joint work of authorship of over a dozen people (and their employers...). Here is for example the "git blame" summary of "itkImage.h" 67 Hans Johnson 49 Will Schroeder 37 Jim Miller 32 Luis Ibanez 20 Brad King 13 Paul Hughett 9 Karthik Krishnan 9 GaA?tan Lehmann 9 Bill Lorensen 6 Arnaud Gelas 4 Mark Foskey 3 Jisung Kim 3 David Cole 1 Vikram Chalana 1 Bill Hoffman The first column is number of lines of code touched by the developer in the second column. This is the outcome of 11 years of development. and this is still incomplete, since it only shows the authors who modified the lines of code for the last time. Tools like gitstat can regularly extract this information if needed. For example: http://public.kitware.com/pub/itk/gitstat/ITK-2011-05-09/index.html developers (and their employers) only hold the copyright of the modifications that they apply to a file, and only when they are over the level of functional code, that merits to be considered a work of authorship (think of a a work of art...). For example, a for loop to count a number of elements, is below the level of being copyrightable. Luis From stephen.aylward at kitware.com Sun Jul 10 22:22:06 2011 From: stephen.aylward at kitware.com (Stephen Aylward) Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2011 18:22:06 -0400 Subject: [Ctk-developers] License versus copyright and authorship In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Luis, Really good point. "Author" is a poor term - maybe we should go with "Original Contributor" or such. The goal is to give credit to the person/institute/toolkit that gets the ball rolling. CTK is a wonderful grassroots effort, without funding. It would be nice to acknowledge the contributions that are being made - those who are taking the initiative to make it succeed. Maybe we should limit such credits to a wiki page, but frankly I've found the wiki pages that attempt to do that to be extremely misleading - they begin to reflect politics and spark ownership issues rather than reflecting the real effort and basis of success. Any suggestions on how to achieve the goal of recognizing who is really doing the work and making the contributions? I'd really like to see credit given to DCMTK, MITK, Slicer, etc as well as the developers . Thanks, Stephen On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 5:30 PM, Luis Ibanez wrote: > On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 4:47 PM, Stephen Aylward > wrote: >> Hi, >> >> One point of clarification - I still strongly believe that CTK code >> should clearly indicate who are its authors/contributors. ? That is, >> if some of the code came from Slicer, it should indicate it. ?If some >> of it came from MITK, it should indicate it. ?If J2 wrote it, it >> should indicate it. >> >> Thanks to use of the Apache 2.0 license, we can independently credit >> authorship and list other copyright owners when appropriate. >> >> Thanks, >> Stephen >> >> -- >> >> ============================== >> Stephen R. Aylward, Ph.D. >> Director of Medical Imaging Research >> Kitware, Inc. - North Carolina Office >> http://www.kitware.com >> stephen.aylward (Skype) >> (919) 969-6990 x300 >> _______________________________________________ >> Ctk-developers mailing list >> Ctk-developers at commontk.org >> http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers >> > ------------------------------------------------------------- > > Stephen, > > Crediting initial author(s) is feasible in the first commit of a > file, but it becomes impractical as the maintenance of that > file is done over time by other developers (as it should be > the case in an open source project where wide participation > is encouraged). > > On day #1, one can clearly say that File X is authored by > developer M, but 1,000 days later, that file is only 75% by > developer M, and now it is also 12% by developer Q, > 9% by developers R,..... 0.1% by developer Z... > > The Statistical Reports generated by the revision control > system are better suited for keeping track of authorship > and credits. > > Over time, the file is a joint work of authorship of over a > dozen people (and their employers...). > > Here is for example the "git blame" > summary of "itkImage.h" > > ? ? ?67 Hans Johnson > ? ? 49 Will Schroeder > ? ? 37 Jim Miller > ? ? 32 Luis Ibanez > ? ? 20 Brad King > ? ? 13 Paul Hughett > ? ? ?9 Karthik Krishnan > ? ? ?9 GaA?tan Lehmann > ? ? ?9 Bill Lorensen > ? ? ?6 Arnaud Gelas > ? ? ?4 Mark Foskey > ? ? ?3 Jisung Kim > ? ? ?3 David Cole > ? ? ?1 Vikram Chalana > ? ? ?1 Bill Hoffman > > > The first column is number of lines of code > touched by the developer in the second > column. > > This is the outcome of > 11 years of development. > > and this is still incomplete, since it only > shows the authors who modified the > lines of code for the last time. > > Tools like gitstat can regularly extract > this information if needed. > > For example: > http://public.kitware.com/pub/itk/gitstat/ITK-2011-05-09/index.html > > developers (and their employers) only hold > the copyright of the modifications that they > apply to a file, and only when they are over > the level of functional code, that merits to > be considered a work of authorship (think > of a a work of art...). ?For example, a for loop > to count a number of elements, is below the > level of being copyrightable. > > > ? ? Luis > -- ============================== Stephen R. Aylward, Ph.D. Director of Medical Imaging Research Kitware, Inc. - North Carolina Office http://www.kitware.com stephen.aylward (Skype) (919) 969-6990 x300 From bill.lorensen at gmail.com Mon Jul 11 21:48:46 2011 From: bill.lorensen at gmail.com (Bill Lorensen) Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 17:48:46 -0400 Subject: [Ctk-developers] License versus copyright and authorship In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I think contributions should be credited to communities and not individuals. ITK, VTK, NA-MIC, DCMTK, MITK, CITK, ... On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 6:22 PM, Stephen Aylward wrote: > Hi Luis, > > Really good point. ? ?"Author" is a poor term - maybe we should go > with "Original Contributor" or such. > > The goal is to give credit to the person/institute/toolkit that gets > the ball rolling. ? CTK is a wonderful grassroots effort, without > funding. ?It would be nice to acknowledge the contributions that are > being made - those who are taking the initiative to make it succeed. > > Maybe we should limit such credits to a wiki page, but frankly I've > found the wiki pages that attempt to do that to be extremely > misleading - they begin to reflect politics and spark ownership issues > rather than reflecting the real effort and basis of success. > > Any suggestions on how to achieve the goal of recognizing who is > really doing the work and making the contributions? ?I'd really like > to see credit given to DCMTK, MITK, Slicer, etc as well as the > developers . > > Thanks, > Stephen > > On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 5:30 PM, Luis Ibanez wrote: >> On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 4:47 PM, Stephen Aylward >> wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> One point of clarification - I still strongly believe that CTK code >>> should clearly indicate who are its authors/contributors. ? That is, >>> if some of the code came from Slicer, it should indicate it. ?If some >>> of it came from MITK, it should indicate it. ?If J2 wrote it, it >>> should indicate it. >>> >>> Thanks to use of the Apache 2.0 license, we can independently credit >>> authorship and list other copyright owners when appropriate. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Stephen >>> >>> -- >>> >>> ============================== >>> Stephen R. Aylward, Ph.D. >>> Director of Medical Imaging Research >>> Kitware, Inc. - North Carolina Office >>> http://www.kitware.com >>> stephen.aylward (Skype) >>> (919) 969-6990 x300 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Ctk-developers mailing list >>> Ctk-developers at commontk.org >>> http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers >>> >> ------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Stephen, >> >> Crediting initial author(s) is feasible in the first commit of a >> file, but it becomes impractical as the maintenance of that >> file is done over time by other developers (as it should be >> the case in an open source project where wide participation >> is encouraged). >> >> On day #1, one can clearly say that File X is authored by >> developer M, but 1,000 days later, that file is only 75% by >> developer M, and now it is also 12% by developer Q, >> 9% by developers R,..... 0.1% by developer Z... >> >> The Statistical Reports generated by the revision control >> system are better suited for keeping track of authorship >> and credits. >> >> Over time, the file is a joint work of authorship of over a >> dozen people (and their employers...). >> >> Here is for example the "git blame" >> summary of "itkImage.h" >> >> ? ? ?67 Hans Johnson >> ? ? 49 Will Schroeder >> ? ? 37 Jim Miller >> ? ? 32 Luis Ibanez >> ? ? 20 Brad King >> ? ? 13 Paul Hughett >> ? ? ?9 Karthik Krishnan >> ? ? ?9 GaA?tan Lehmann >> ? ? ?9 Bill Lorensen >> ? ? ?6 Arnaud Gelas >> ? ? ?4 Mark Foskey >> ? ? ?3 Jisung Kim >> ? ? ?3 David Cole >> ? ? ?1 Vikram Chalana >> ? ? ?1 Bill Hoffman >> >> >> The first column is number of lines of code >> touched by the developer in the second >> column. >> >> This is the outcome of >> 11 years of development. >> >> and this is still incomplete, since it only >> shows the authors who modified the >> lines of code for the last time. >> >> Tools like gitstat can regularly extract >> this information if needed. >> >> For example: >> http://public.kitware.com/pub/itk/gitstat/ITK-2011-05-09/index.html >> >> developers (and their employers) only hold >> the copyright of the modifications that they >> apply to a file, and only when they are over >> the level of functional code, that merits to >> be considered a work of authorship (think >> of a a work of art...). ?For example, a for loop >> to count a number of elements, is below the >> level of being copyrightable. >> >> >> ? ? Luis >> > > > > -- > > ============================== > Stephen R. Aylward, Ph.D. > Director of Medical Imaging Research > Kitware, Inc. - North Carolina Office > http://www.kitware.com > stephen.aylward (Skype) > (919) 969-6990 x300 > _______________________________________________ > Ctk-developers mailing list > Ctk-developers at commontk.org > http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers > From haehn at bwh.harvard.edu Wed Jul 13 16:13:37 2011 From: haehn at bwh.harvard.edu (Daniel Haehn) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 12:13:37 -0400 Subject: [Ctk-developers] Setting name and description of ctkWorkflowWidgetStep In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Done: https://github.com/commontk/CTK/issues/18 On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Daniel Haehn wrote: > Sure, will do. > > Daniel > > On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 12:25 PM, Jean-Christophe Fillion-Robin > wrote: >> Hi Daniel, >> >> Can we consider the case closed ? >> >> Could you document the issue on the bugtracker (label: Feature Request) ? >> See https://github.com/commontk/CTK/issues >> >> Thanks >> Jc >> >> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 10:41 PM, Daniel Haehn wrote: >>> >>> Hi Danielle, >>> >>> that is absolutely correct! >>> >>> Maybe it would be easiest to just fire a >>> d->workflow->currentStepChanged(this) signal when >>> ctkWorkflowStep::setName or setDescription are called? Then, the >>> groupbox would be automatically updated. >>> >>> Nevertheless, it has no high priority for me since I now set the name >>> and description of the step in its constructor - before adding it to >>> the workflow. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Daniel >>> >>> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 4:13 PM, Danielle Pace >>> wrote: >>> > Hi Daniel, >>> > Actually, I think you exposed something important here. >>> > I'm assuming, from python, that you wrote something similar to: >>> > - create step 1 (with no name/description) >>> > - create step 2 (with no name/description) >>> > - create workflow widget and add steps >>> > - display workflow widget >>> > - set name/description for steps 1 and 2 >>> > - expected to see workflow update, and it didn't >>> > Is this correct? ?I think we are missing some signals on ctkWorkflowStep >>> > such as NameChanged(QString) and DescriptionChanged(QString) that the >>> > ctkWorkflowGroupBox should be listening to. >>> > Perhaps you could still post your snippet of python code that wasn't >>> > working, so I can verify that it is an ordering of commands that we >>> > should >>> > support? >>> > Thanks, >>> > >>> > Danielle >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 3:57 PM, Daniel Haehn >>> > wrote: >>> >> >>> >> Hi Danielle, >>> >> >>> >> thanks to your response I checked it again and you are right: it was >>> >> my mistake :) >>> >> >>> >> If the name and description of the steps are set before the steps are >>> >> added to the workflow, it all works as expected. >>> >> >>> >> I set the stuff after adding it and of course it did not recognize it >>> >> until the signal was fired. >>> >> >>> >> Thanks for the great work! >>> >> >>> >> Cheers, >>> >> Daniel >>> >> >>> >> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 3:44 PM, Danielle Pace >>> >> >>> >> wrote: >>> >> > Hi Daniel, >>> >> > You shouldn't have to call the currenStepChanged signal directly. >>> >> > ?Can >>> >> > you >>> >> > please post your bit of code that is not working to the CTK >>> >> > developers >>> >> > mailing list, and I will take a look? >>> >> > Thanks, >>> >> > >>> >> > Danielle >>> >> > >>> >> > On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 3:21 PM, Julien Finet >>> >> > >>> >> > wrote: >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> >> >> From: Daniel Haehn >>> >> >> Date: Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 3:13 PM >>> >> >> Subject: Re: [Ctk-developers] Setting name and description of >>> >> >> ctkWorkflowWidgetStep >>> >> >> To: ctk-developers at commontk.org >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Hi guys, >>> >> >> >>> >> >> I got it: >>> >> >> >>> >> >> the ctkWorkflowGroupBox listens for the currentStepChanged signal to >>> >> >> update the title (==name) and subTitle (==description) for the >>> >> >> current >>> >> >> step. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> So maybe it makes sense to invoke this signal when the >>> >> >> ctkWorkflow.start() gets called? >>> >> >> >>> >> >> If I do it manually like that, it works: >>> >> >> >>> >> >> ? ? ?self.workflow.start() >>> >> >> ? ? ?self.workflow.currentStepChanged(steps[0]) >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Cheers, >>> >> >> Daniel >>> >> >> >>> >> >> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 12:17 PM, Daniel Haehn >>> >> >> >>> >> >> wrote: >>> >> >> > Hi devels, >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > in C++ I can do >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > ?this->setName("Title of step"); >>> >> >> > ?this->setDescription("Instructions"); >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > in a ctkWorkflowWidgetStep, which then get nicely displayed in the >>> >> >> > associated ctkWorkflowGroupBox. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > In Python, the same methods can be accessed but the >>> >> >> > ctkWorkflowGroupBox does not seem to show them. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > Do I need to trigger an update on the box or something similar? >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > Thank you! >>> >> >> > Daniel >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >>> >> >> Ctk-developers mailing list >>> >> >> Ctk-developers at commontk.org >>> >> >> http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers >>> >> >> >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > -- >>> >> > Danielle Pace, M.ESc. >>> >> > Research and Development Engineer >>> >> > Kitware Inc., >>> >> > North Carolina Office >>> >> > www.kitware.com >>> >> > 919-969-6990 X 319 >>> >> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > -- >>> > Danielle Pace, M.ESc. >>> > Research and Development Engineer >>> > Kitware Inc., >>> > North Carolina Office >>> > www.kitware.com >>> > 919-969-6990 X 319 >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Ctk-developers mailing list >>> Ctk-developers at commontk.org >>> http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers >> >> >> >> -- >> +1 919 869 8849 >> >> > From jchris.fillionr at kitware.com Thu Jul 14 00:07:42 2011 From: jchris.fillionr at kitware.com (Jean-Christophe Fillion-Robin) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 20:07:42 -0400 Subject: [Ctk-developers] CTK license and copyright In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Steve, I noticed that you updated some files with the proper copyright (Isomics, Inc). See https://github.com/commontk/CTK/commit/16404dfd91721a638ffed1f9ec9fadcbe591335e Note: Having already started and published a topic named fix-license-header, it would have been "better" to checkout that topic, add your commit and publish your commit back on your fork ... :p See https://github.com/commontk/CTK/commit/16404dfd91721a638ffed1f9ec9fadcbe591335e I will go ahead and integrate that topic. Thanks Jc On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 7:14 PM, Jean-Christophe Fillion-Robin < jchris.fillionr at kitware.com> wrote: > Hi Folks, > > I added a license on all *.h and *.cpp files. > > See https://github.com/jcfr/CTK/compare/master...fix-license-header > > //----------------------------------- > Note: I added the appropriate license using the following script to > determine the first author. > > for i in `cat headers.txt`; \ > do a=`git log --follow --format="%an" $i | tail -n 1`;\ > echo "$a --- $i"; \ > done > > //----------------------------------- > Few questions: > > * What is the best practice regarding python script ? How should we > integrate the license ? docstring, ... ? > > * The files authored by Steve Pieper mention "Kitware, Inc." in the > copyright. > > Steve> I believe the license in these files is a byproduct of copy/paste. > Do you want to keep it like that of should we change it ? Would you prefer > "Isomics, Inc." instead ? > > To get the list of files authored by Steve Pieper, the following could be > done: > > for i in `find . -type f -path '.git' -prune -o -print`; \ > do a=`git log --follow --format="%an" $i | tail -n 1`; echo "$a --- $i"; > \ > done | ack Pieper > > Thanks > Jc > > On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 2:39 PM, Dominique Belhachemi wrote: > >> Hi Jc, >> >> The license/copyright information for the files below is missing. Do >> you want to add those information? >> >> Thanks >> Dominique >> >> >> >> ./Plugins/org.commontk.dah.core/Testing/Cpp/ctkDicomObjectLocatorCacheTest1.cpp >> >> ./Plugins/org.commontk.dah.core/Testing/Cpp/ctkDicomAppHostingTypesTest1.cpp >> >> ./Plugins/org.commontk.qtmobility.service/ctkQtMobilityServiceActivator_p.h >> >> ./Plugins/org.commontk.qtmobility.service/ctkQtMobilityServiceActivator.cpp >> ./Plugins/org.commontk.eventbus/ctkEventBusImpl_p.h >> ./Plugins/org.commontk.eventbus/ctkEventBusImpl.cpp >> ./Plugins/org.commontk.eventbus/ctkEventBusPlugin_p.h >> ./Plugins/org.commontk.eventbus/ctkEventHandlerWrapper_p.h >> ./Plugins/org.commontk.eventbus/ctkEventBusPlugin.cpp >> > => Done > > >> ./Libs/Visualization/VTK/Core/vtkLightBoxRendererManager.h >> > >> ./Libs/Visualization/VTK/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkVTKObjectEventsObserverTest1.cpp >> >> ./Libs/Visualization/VTK/Core/Testing/Cpp/vtkLightBoxRendererManagerTest1.cpp >> ./Libs/Visualization/VTK/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkVTKObjectTestHelper.cpp >> ./Libs/Visualization/VTK/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkVTKConnectionTest1.cpp >> ./Libs/Visualization/VTK/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkVTKObjectTestHelper.h >> ./Libs/Visualization/VTK/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkVTKObjectTest1.cpp >> ./Libs/Visualization/VTK/Core/vtkLightBoxRendererManager.cpp >> > => Done > > > >> ./Libs/Scripting/Python/Core/Python/qt/__init__.py >> > => No license added ... not sure it if make sens to add one ... > > >> ./Libs/Core/CMake/TestBFD/TestBFD.cpp >> > ./Libs/Core/ctkCommandLineParser.cpp > > ./Libs/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkBinaryFileDescriptorTestHelper.cpp >> ./Libs/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkCommandLineParserTest1.cpp >> ./Libs/Core/ctkPimpl.h >> ./Libs/Core/ctkCommandLineParser.h >> > => Done > > >> ./Libs/DICOM/Widgets/ctkDICOMQueryWidget.cpp >> ./Libs/DICOM/Widgets/Testing/Cpp/ctkDICOMImageTest1.cpp >> ./Libs/DICOM/Core/ctkDICOMPersonName.h >> ./Libs/DICOM/Core/ctkDICOMDataset.cpp >> ./Libs/DICOM/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkDICOMTest1.cpp >> ./Libs/DICOM/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkDICOMTesterTest2.cpp >> ./Libs/DICOM/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkDICOMTesterTest1.cpp >> ./Libs/DICOM/Core/ctkDICOMPersonName.cpp > > => Done > > >> ./Applications/Testing/Cpp/ctkDICOMApplicationTest1.cpp >> > ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/ctkSimplePythonShellMain.cpp >> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/ctkSimplePythonQtDecorators.h >> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/ctkTestWrappedQInvokable.h >> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/ctkSimplePythonManager.h >> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/ctkTestWrappedQListOfVTKObject.h >> > => Done > > >> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/Testing/Python/derivedQWidgetTest.py >> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/Testing/Python/wrappedVTKSlotTest.py >> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/Testing/Python/wrappedQPropertyTest.py >> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/Testing/Python/vtkPythonSmoke.py >> >> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/Testing/Python/wrappedQInvokableTest.py >> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/Testing/Python/wrappedSlotTest.py >> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/Testing/Python/ctkWidgetsTest.py >> >> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/Testing/Python/wrappedVTKQInvokableTest.py >> > => No license added ... not sure it if make sens to add one ... > > >> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/ctkTestWrappedSlot.h >> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/ctkTestWrappedVTKSlot.h >> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/ctkTestWrappedQProperty.h >> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/Python/ctkSimplePythonShell.py >> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/ctkTestWrappedVTKQInvokable.h >> > => Done > >> >> >> On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Jean-Christophe Fillion-Robin >> wrote: >> > Hi Dominique, >> > >> > Please review the following topic: >> > https://github.com/jcfr/CTK/compare/master...fix-license-header >> > >> > 788f261 Use URL to refer to ParaView license version 1.2 >> > d4b55ab Fix indent in "Module" attribute associated with Paraview >> license >> > header >> > 681c958 ctkBinaryFileDescriptor - Remove BWH Copyright year and fix >> indent >> > 20cc5c8 Update license header associated with ctkVTKThumbnailViewTest1 >> > 56041fa Update license header associated with PythonQtDecorators >> > >> > Thanks >> > Jc >> > >> > >> > >> > On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Stephen Aylward >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> Hi Dominique, >> >> >> >> Thanks for asking and checking the files. >> >> >> >> All of CTK is suppose to be under the Apache 2.0 license. If you >> >> find files with any other licence, please let us know. We will fix >> >> them immediately. >> >> >> >> Regarding the holder of the copyright - I believe we decided that >> >> there would be no single copyright holder for CTK. The files are held >> >> by the individual contributors and/or their institutions. This is >> >> not how I would prefer things, because it creates an impression of >> >> complex ownership (whereas the Apache license assures the code will >> >> always be free for commercial and non-commercial use, and without >> >> patent restrictions to the best of our knowledge). >> >> >> >> The CTK members should probably re-address copyright assignments. I >> >> suggest we have the assignment go to the Insight Software Consortium >> >> (ISC) or some other independent entity. Hans Johnson at U of Iowa is >> >> the current president of the ISC, and he could ask the ISC board to >> >> accept CTK as an ISC-sponsored toolkit. More info on the ISC is at: >> >> http://insightsoftwareconsortium.org/ >> >> >> >> Stephen >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Dominique Belhachemi >> >> wrote: >> >> > Hi, >> >> > >> >> > I try to figure out whether or not the CTK source code can be >> >> > distributed. Now I am having a couple of questions. >> >> > >> >> > - Some files in the CTK repository are covered by the ParaView >> license >> >> > version 1.2. Is it possible to add the referenced file >> >> > 'License_v1.2.txt' to the repository? >> >> > >> >> > - The Slicer license is missing as well. I found some statements >> which >> >> > points to dead links: >> >> > "See Doc/copyright/copyright.txt >> >> > or http://www.slicer.org/copyright/copyright.txt for details." >> >> > >> >> > - Who is the main copyright holder of CTK? >> >> > >> >> > Thanks >> >> > Dominique >> >> > _______________________________________________ >> >> > Ctk-developers mailing list >> >> > Ctk-developers at commontk.org >> >> > http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> >> ============================== >> >> Stephen R. Aylward, Ph.D. >> >> Director of Medical Imaging Research >> >> Kitware, Inc. - North Carolina Office >> >> http://www.kitware.com >> >> stephen.aylward (Skype) >> >> (919) 969-6990 x300 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> Ctk-developers mailing list >> >> Ctk-developers at commontk.org >> >> http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > +1 919 869 8849 >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> Ctk-developers mailing list >> Ctk-developers at commontk.org >> http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers >> > > > > -- > +1 919 869 8849 > > -- +1 919 869 8849 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jchris.fillionr at kitware.com Thu Jul 14 00:12:32 2011 From: jchris.fillionr at kitware.com (Jean-Christophe Fillion-Robin) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 20:12:32 -0400 Subject: [Ctk-developers] CTK license and copyright In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dominique, I integrated the topic " fix-license-header". Out of curiosity, which method/script did you use to find out which file where missing a license ? See https://github.com/commontk/CTK/commit/6fe14129c4318c47df771969818fbbe12000c465 Thanks Jc On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 8:07 PM, Jean-Christophe Fillion-Robin < jchris.fillionr at kitware.com> wrote: > Steve, > > I noticed that you updated some files with the proper copyright (Isomics, > Inc). > See > https://github.com/commontk/CTK/commit/16404dfd91721a638ffed1f9ec9fadcbe591335e > > Note: Having already started and published a topic named > fix-license-header, it would have been "better" to checkout that topic, add > your commit and publish your commit back on your fork ... :p > See > https://github.com/commontk/CTK/commit/16404dfd91721a638ffed1f9ec9fadcbe591335e > > I will go ahead and integrate that topic. > > Thanks > Jc > > > On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 7:14 PM, Jean-Christophe Fillion-Robin < > jchris.fillionr at kitware.com> wrote: > >> Hi Folks, >> >> I added a license on all *.h and *.cpp files. >> >> See https://github.com/jcfr/CTK/compare/master...fix-license-header >> >> //----------------------------------- >> Note: I added the appropriate license using the following script to >> determine the first author. >> >> for i in `cat headers.txt`; \ >> do a=`git log --follow --format="%an" $i | tail -n 1`;\ >> echo "$a --- $i"; \ >> done >> >> //----------------------------------- >> Few questions: >> >> * What is the best practice regarding python script ? How should we >> integrate the license ? docstring, ... ? >> >> * The files authored by Steve Pieper mention "Kitware, Inc." in the >> copyright. >> >> Steve> I believe the license in these files is a byproduct of copy/paste. >> Do you want to keep it like that of should we change it ? Would you prefer >> "Isomics, Inc." instead ? >> >> To get the list of files authored by Steve Pieper, the following could be >> done: >> >> for i in `find . -type f -path '.git' -prune -o -print`; \ >> do a=`git log --follow --format="%an" $i | tail -n 1`; echo "$a --- >> $i"; \ >> done | ack Pieper >> >> Thanks >> Jc >> >> On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 2:39 PM, Dominique Belhachemi wrote: >> >>> Hi Jc, >>> >>> The license/copyright information for the files below is missing. Do >>> you want to add those information? >>> >>> Thanks >>> Dominique >>> >>> >>> >>> ./Plugins/org.commontk.dah.core/Testing/Cpp/ctkDicomObjectLocatorCacheTest1.cpp >>> >>> ./Plugins/org.commontk.dah.core/Testing/Cpp/ctkDicomAppHostingTypesTest1.cpp >>> >>> ./Plugins/org.commontk.qtmobility.service/ctkQtMobilityServiceActivator_p.h >>> >>> ./Plugins/org.commontk.qtmobility.service/ctkQtMobilityServiceActivator.cpp >>> ./Plugins/org.commontk.eventbus/ctkEventBusImpl_p.h >>> ./Plugins/org.commontk.eventbus/ctkEventBusImpl.cpp >>> ./Plugins/org.commontk.eventbus/ctkEventBusPlugin_p.h >>> ./Plugins/org.commontk.eventbus/ctkEventHandlerWrapper_p.h >>> ./Plugins/org.commontk.eventbus/ctkEventBusPlugin.cpp >>> >> => Done >> >> >>> ./Libs/Visualization/VTK/Core/vtkLightBoxRendererManager.h >>> >> >>> ./Libs/Visualization/VTK/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkVTKObjectEventsObserverTest1.cpp >>> >>> ./Libs/Visualization/VTK/Core/Testing/Cpp/vtkLightBoxRendererManagerTest1.cpp >>> ./Libs/Visualization/VTK/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkVTKObjectTestHelper.cpp >>> ./Libs/Visualization/VTK/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkVTKConnectionTest1.cpp >>> ./Libs/Visualization/VTK/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkVTKObjectTestHelper.h >>> ./Libs/Visualization/VTK/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkVTKObjectTest1.cpp >>> ./Libs/Visualization/VTK/Core/vtkLightBoxRendererManager.cpp >>> >> => Done >> >> >> >>> ./Libs/Scripting/Python/Core/Python/qt/__init__.py >>> >> => No license added ... not sure it if make sens to add one ... >> >> >>> ./Libs/Core/CMake/TestBFD/TestBFD.cpp >>> >> ./Libs/Core/ctkCommandLineParser.cpp >> >> ./Libs/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkBinaryFileDescriptorTestHelper.cpp >>> ./Libs/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkCommandLineParserTest1.cpp >>> ./Libs/Core/ctkPimpl.h >>> ./Libs/Core/ctkCommandLineParser.h >>> >> => Done >> >> >>> ./Libs/DICOM/Widgets/ctkDICOMQueryWidget.cpp >>> ./Libs/DICOM/Widgets/Testing/Cpp/ctkDICOMImageTest1.cpp >>> ./Libs/DICOM/Core/ctkDICOMPersonName.h >>> ./Libs/DICOM/Core/ctkDICOMDataset.cpp >>> ./Libs/DICOM/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkDICOMTest1.cpp >>> ./Libs/DICOM/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkDICOMTesterTest2.cpp >>> ./Libs/DICOM/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkDICOMTesterTest1.cpp >>> ./Libs/DICOM/Core/ctkDICOMPersonName.cpp >> >> => Done >> >> >>> ./Applications/Testing/Cpp/ctkDICOMApplicationTest1.cpp >>> >> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/ctkSimplePythonShellMain.cpp >>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/ctkSimplePythonQtDecorators.h >>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/ctkTestWrappedQInvokable.h >>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/ctkSimplePythonManager.h >>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/ctkTestWrappedQListOfVTKObject.h >>> >> => Done >> >> >>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/Testing/Python/derivedQWidgetTest.py >>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/Testing/Python/wrappedVTKSlotTest.py >>> >>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/Testing/Python/wrappedQPropertyTest.py >>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/Testing/Python/vtkPythonSmoke.py >>> >>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/Testing/Python/wrappedQInvokableTest.py >>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/Testing/Python/wrappedSlotTest.py >>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/Testing/Python/ctkWidgetsTest.py >>> >>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/Testing/Python/wrappedVTKQInvokableTest.py >>> >> => No license added ... not sure it if make sens to add one ... >> >> >>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/ctkTestWrappedSlot.h >>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/ctkTestWrappedVTKSlot.h >>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/ctkTestWrappedQProperty.h >>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/Python/ctkSimplePythonShell.py >>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/ctkTestWrappedVTKQInvokable.h >>> >> => Done >> >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Jean-Christophe Fillion-Robin >>> wrote: >>> > Hi Dominique, >>> > >>> > Please review the following topic: >>> > https://github.com/jcfr/CTK/compare/master...fix-license-header >>> > >>> > 788f261 Use URL to refer to ParaView license version 1.2 >>> > d4b55ab Fix indent in "Module" attribute associated with Paraview >>> license >>> > header >>> > 681c958 ctkBinaryFileDescriptor - Remove BWH Copyright year and fix >>> indent >>> > 20cc5c8 Update license header associated with ctkVTKThumbnailViewTest1 >>> > 56041fa Update license header associated with PythonQtDecorators >>> > >>> > Thanks >>> > Jc >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Stephen Aylward >>> > wrote: >>> >> >>> >> Hi Dominique, >>> >> >>> >> Thanks for asking and checking the files. >>> >> >>> >> All of CTK is suppose to be under the Apache 2.0 license. If you >>> >> find files with any other licence, please let us know. We will fix >>> >> them immediately. >>> >> >>> >> Regarding the holder of the copyright - I believe we decided that >>> >> there would be no single copyright holder for CTK. The files are held >>> >> by the individual contributors and/or their institutions. This is >>> >> not how I would prefer things, because it creates an impression of >>> >> complex ownership (whereas the Apache license assures the code will >>> >> always be free for commercial and non-commercial use, and without >>> >> patent restrictions to the best of our knowledge). >>> >> >>> >> The CTK members should probably re-address copyright assignments. I >>> >> suggest we have the assignment go to the Insight Software Consortium >>> >> (ISC) or some other independent entity. Hans Johnson at U of Iowa is >>> >> the current president of the ISC, and he could ask the ISC board to >>> >> accept CTK as an ISC-sponsored toolkit. More info on the ISC is at: >>> >> http://insightsoftwareconsortium.org/ >>> >> >>> >> Stephen >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Dominique Belhachemi >>> >> wrote: >>> >> > Hi, >>> >> > >>> >> > I try to figure out whether or not the CTK source code can be >>> >> > distributed. Now I am having a couple of questions. >>> >> > >>> >> > - Some files in the CTK repository are covered by the ParaView >>> license >>> >> > version 1.2. Is it possible to add the referenced file >>> >> > 'License_v1.2.txt' to the repository? >>> >> > >>> >> > - The Slicer license is missing as well. I found some statements >>> which >>> >> > points to dead links: >>> >> > "See Doc/copyright/copyright.txt >>> >> > or http://www.slicer.org/copyright/copyright.txt for details." >>> >> > >>> >> > - Who is the main copyright holder of CTK? >>> >> > >>> >> > Thanks >>> >> > Dominique >>> >> > _______________________________________________ >>> >> > Ctk-developers mailing list >>> >> > Ctk-developers at commontk.org >>> >> > http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers >>> >> > >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> -- >>> >> >>> >> ============================== >>> >> Stephen R. Aylward, Ph.D. >>> >> Director of Medical Imaging Research >>> >> Kitware, Inc. - North Carolina Office >>> >> http://www.kitware.com >>> >> stephen.aylward (Skype) >>> >> (919) 969-6990 x300 >>> >> _______________________________________________ >>> >> Ctk-developers mailing list >>> >> Ctk-developers at commontk.org >>> >> http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > -- >>> > +1 919 869 8849 >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Ctk-developers mailing list >>> Ctk-developers at commontk.org >>> http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> +1 919 869 8849 >> >> > > > -- > +1 919 869 8849 > > -- +1 919 869 8849 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pieper at ibility.net Thu Jul 14 03:11:11 2011 From: pieper at ibility.net (Steve Pieper) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 23:11:11 -0400 Subject: [Ctk-developers] CTK license and copyright In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Touche! On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 8:07 PM, Jean-Christophe Fillion-Robin < jchris.fillionr at kitware.com> wrote: > Steve, > > I noticed that you updated some files with the proper copyright (Isomics, > Inc). > See > https://github.com/commontk/CTK/commit/16404dfd91721a638ffed1f9ec9fadcbe591335e > > Note: Having already started and published a topic named > fix-license-header, it would have been "better" to checkout that topic, add > your commit and publish your commit back on your fork ... :p > See > https://github.com/commontk/CTK/commit/16404dfd91721a638ffed1f9ec9fadcbe591335e > > I will go ahead and integrate that topic. > > Thanks > Jc > > > On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 7:14 PM, Jean-Christophe Fillion-Robin < > jchris.fillionr at kitware.com> wrote: > >> Hi Folks, >> >> I added a license on all *.h and *.cpp files. >> >> See https://github.com/jcfr/CTK/compare/master...fix-license-header >> >> //----------------------------------- >> Note: I added the appropriate license using the following script to >> determine the first author. >> >> for i in `cat headers.txt`; \ >> do a=`git log --follow --format="%an" $i | tail -n 1`;\ >> echo "$a --- $i"; \ >> done >> >> //----------------------------------- >> Few questions: >> >> * What is the best practice regarding python script ? How should we >> integrate the license ? docstring, ... ? >> >> * The files authored by Steve Pieper mention "Kitware, Inc." in the >> copyright. >> >> Steve> I believe the license in these files is a byproduct of copy/paste. >> Do you want to keep it like that of should we change it ? Would you prefer >> "Isomics, Inc." instead ? >> >> To get the list of files authored by Steve Pieper, the following could be >> done: >> >> for i in `find . -type f -path '.git' -prune -o -print`; \ >> do a=`git log --follow --format="%an" $i | tail -n 1`; echo "$a --- >> $i"; \ >> done | ack Pieper >> >> Thanks >> Jc >> >> On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 2:39 PM, Dominique Belhachemi wrote: >> >>> Hi Jc, >>> >>> The license/copyright information for the files below is missing. Do >>> you want to add those information? >>> >>> Thanks >>> Dominique >>> >>> >>> >>> ./Plugins/org.commontk.dah.core/Testing/Cpp/ctkDicomObjectLocatorCacheTest1.cpp >>> >>> ./Plugins/org.commontk.dah.core/Testing/Cpp/ctkDicomAppHostingTypesTest1.cpp >>> >>> ./Plugins/org.commontk.qtmobility.service/ctkQtMobilityServiceActivator_p.h >>> >>> ./Plugins/org.commontk.qtmobility.service/ctkQtMobilityServiceActivator.cpp >>> ./Plugins/org.commontk.eventbus/ctkEventBusImpl_p.h >>> ./Plugins/org.commontk.eventbus/ctkEventBusImpl.cpp >>> ./Plugins/org.commontk.eventbus/ctkEventBusPlugin_p.h >>> ./Plugins/org.commontk.eventbus/ctkEventHandlerWrapper_p.h >>> ./Plugins/org.commontk.eventbus/ctkEventBusPlugin.cpp >>> >> => Done >> >> >>> ./Libs/Visualization/VTK/Core/vtkLightBoxRendererManager.h >>> >> >>> ./Libs/Visualization/VTK/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkVTKObjectEventsObserverTest1.cpp >>> >>> ./Libs/Visualization/VTK/Core/Testing/Cpp/vtkLightBoxRendererManagerTest1.cpp >>> ./Libs/Visualization/VTK/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkVTKObjectTestHelper.cpp >>> ./Libs/Visualization/VTK/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkVTKConnectionTest1.cpp >>> ./Libs/Visualization/VTK/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkVTKObjectTestHelper.h >>> ./Libs/Visualization/VTK/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkVTKObjectTest1.cpp >>> ./Libs/Visualization/VTK/Core/vtkLightBoxRendererManager.cpp >>> >> => Done >> >> >> >>> ./Libs/Scripting/Python/Core/Python/qt/__init__.py >>> >> => No license added ... not sure it if make sens to add one ... >> >> >>> ./Libs/Core/CMake/TestBFD/TestBFD.cpp >>> >> ./Libs/Core/ctkCommandLineParser.cpp >> >> ./Libs/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkBinaryFileDescriptorTestHelper.cpp >>> ./Libs/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkCommandLineParserTest1.cpp >>> ./Libs/Core/ctkPimpl.h >>> ./Libs/Core/ctkCommandLineParser.h >>> >> => Done >> >> >>> ./Libs/DICOM/Widgets/ctkDICOMQueryWidget.cpp >>> ./Libs/DICOM/Widgets/Testing/Cpp/ctkDICOMImageTest1.cpp >>> ./Libs/DICOM/Core/ctkDICOMPersonName.h >>> ./Libs/DICOM/Core/ctkDICOMDataset.cpp >>> ./Libs/DICOM/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkDICOMTest1.cpp >>> ./Libs/DICOM/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkDICOMTesterTest2.cpp >>> ./Libs/DICOM/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkDICOMTesterTest1.cpp >>> ./Libs/DICOM/Core/ctkDICOMPersonName.cpp >> >> => Done >> >> >>> ./Applications/Testing/Cpp/ctkDICOMApplicationTest1.cpp >>> >> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/ctkSimplePythonShellMain.cpp >>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/ctkSimplePythonQtDecorators.h >>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/ctkTestWrappedQInvokable.h >>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/ctkSimplePythonManager.h >>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/ctkTestWrappedQListOfVTKObject.h >>> >> => Done >> >> >>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/Testing/Python/derivedQWidgetTest.py >>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/Testing/Python/wrappedVTKSlotTest.py >>> >>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/Testing/Python/wrappedQPropertyTest.py >>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/Testing/Python/vtkPythonSmoke.py >>> >>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/Testing/Python/wrappedQInvokableTest.py >>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/Testing/Python/wrappedSlotTest.py >>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/Testing/Python/ctkWidgetsTest.py >>> >>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/Testing/Python/wrappedVTKQInvokableTest.py >>> >> => No license added ... not sure it if make sens to add one ... >> >> >>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/ctkTestWrappedSlot.h >>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/ctkTestWrappedVTKSlot.h >>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/ctkTestWrappedQProperty.h >>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/Python/ctkSimplePythonShell.py >>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/ctkTestWrappedVTKQInvokable.h >>> >> => Done >> >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Jean-Christophe Fillion-Robin >>> wrote: >>> > Hi Dominique, >>> > >>> > Please review the following topic: >>> > https://github.com/jcfr/CTK/compare/master...fix-license-header >>> > >>> > 788f261 Use URL to refer to ParaView license version 1.2 >>> > d4b55ab Fix indent in "Module" attribute associated with Paraview >>> license >>> > header >>> > 681c958 ctkBinaryFileDescriptor - Remove BWH Copyright year and fix >>> indent >>> > 20cc5c8 Update license header associated with ctkVTKThumbnailViewTest1 >>> > 56041fa Update license header associated with PythonQtDecorators >>> > >>> > Thanks >>> > Jc >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Stephen Aylward >>> > wrote: >>> >> >>> >> Hi Dominique, >>> >> >>> >> Thanks for asking and checking the files. >>> >> >>> >> All of CTK is suppose to be under the Apache 2.0 license. If you >>> >> find files with any other licence, please let us know. We will fix >>> >> them immediately. >>> >> >>> >> Regarding the holder of the copyright - I believe we decided that >>> >> there would be no single copyright holder for CTK. The files are held >>> >> by the individual contributors and/or their institutions. This is >>> >> not how I would prefer things, because it creates an impression of >>> >> complex ownership (whereas the Apache license assures the code will >>> >> always be free for commercial and non-commercial use, and without >>> >> patent restrictions to the best of our knowledge). >>> >> >>> >> The CTK members should probably re-address copyright assignments. I >>> >> suggest we have the assignment go to the Insight Software Consortium >>> >> (ISC) or some other independent entity. Hans Johnson at U of Iowa is >>> >> the current president of the ISC, and he could ask the ISC board to >>> >> accept CTK as an ISC-sponsored toolkit. More info on the ISC is at: >>> >> http://insightsoftwareconsortium.org/ >>> >> >>> >> Stephen >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Dominique Belhachemi >>> >> wrote: >>> >> > Hi, >>> >> > >>> >> > I try to figure out whether or not the CTK source code can be >>> >> > distributed. Now I am having a couple of questions. >>> >> > >>> >> > - Some files in the CTK repository are covered by the ParaView >>> license >>> >> > version 1.2. Is it possible to add the referenced file >>> >> > 'License_v1.2.txt' to the repository? >>> >> > >>> >> > - The Slicer license is missing as well. I found some statements >>> which >>> >> > points to dead links: >>> >> > "See Doc/copyright/copyright.txt >>> >> > or http://www.slicer.org/copyright/copyright.txt for details." >>> >> > >>> >> > - Who is the main copyright holder of CTK? >>> >> > >>> >> > Thanks >>> >> > Dominique >>> >> > _______________________________________________ >>> >> > Ctk-developers mailing list >>> >> > Ctk-developers at commontk.org >>> >> > http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers >>> >> > >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> -- >>> >> >>> >> ============================== >>> >> Stephen R. Aylward, Ph.D. >>> >> Director of Medical Imaging Research >>> >> Kitware, Inc. - North Carolina Office >>> >> http://www.kitware.com >>> >> stephen.aylward (Skype) >>> >> (919) 969-6990 x300 >>> >> _______________________________________________ >>> >> Ctk-developers mailing list >>> >> Ctk-developers at commontk.org >>> >> http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > -- >>> > +1 919 869 8849 >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Ctk-developers mailing list >>> Ctk-developers at commontk.org >>> http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> +1 919 869 8849 >> >> > > > -- > +1 919 869 8849 > > > _______________________________________________ > Ctk-developers mailing list > Ctk-developers at commontk.org > http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mathieu.malaterre at gmail.com Thu Jul 14 07:49:04 2011 From: mathieu.malaterre at gmail.com (Mathieu Malaterre) Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 09:49:04 +0200 Subject: [Ctk-developers] CTK license and copyright In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This is a tool available at least on debian, called licensecheck (usr -r for recursive checking) HTH On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 2:12 AM, Jean-Christophe Fillion-Robin wrote: > Dominique, > > I integrated the topic " fix-license-header". > > Out of curiosity, which method/script did you use to find out which file > where missing a license ? > > See > https://github.com/commontk/CTK/commit/6fe14129c4318c47df771969818fbbe12000c465 > > Thanks > Jc > > On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 8:07 PM, Jean-Christophe Fillion-Robin > wrote: >> >> Steve, >> >> ?I noticed that you updated some files with the proper copyright (Isomics, >> Inc). >> See >> https://github.com/commontk/CTK/commit/16404dfd91721a638ffed1f9ec9fadcbe591335e >> >> Note: Having already started and published a topic named >> fix-license-header, it would have been "better" to checkout that topic, add >> your commit and publish your commit back on your fork ...? :p >> See >> https://github.com/commontk/CTK/commit/16404dfd91721a638ffed1f9ec9fadcbe591335e >> >> I will go ahead and integrate that topic. >> >> Thanks >> Jc >> >> On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 7:14 PM, Jean-Christophe Fillion-Robin >> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Folks, >>> >>> I added a license on all *.h and *.cpp files. >>> >>> See https://github.com/jcfr/CTK/compare/master...fix-license-header >>> >>> //----------------------------------- >>> Note: I added the appropriate license using the following script to >>> determine the first author. >>> >>> ?for i in `cat headers.txt`; \ >>> ? do a=`git log --follow --format="%an" $i? | tail -n 1`;\ >>> ? echo "$a --- $i"; \ >>> done >>> >>> //----------------------------------- >>> Few questions: >>> >>> * What is the best practice regarding python script ? How should we >>> integrate the license ? docstring, ... ? >>> >>> * The files authored by Steve Pieper mention "Kitware, Inc." in the >>> copyright. >>> >>> Steve> I believe the license in these files is a byproduct of copy/paste. >>> Do you want to keep it like that of should we change it ? Would you prefer >>> "Isomics, Inc." instead ? >>> >>> To get the list of files authored by Steve Pieper, the following could be >>> done: >>> >>> for i in `find . -type f -path '.git' -prune -o -print`; \ >>> ? do a=`git log --follow --format="%an" $i? | tail -n 1`; echo "$a --- >>> $i"; \ >>> done | ack Pieper >>> >>> Thanks >>> Jc >>> >>> On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 2:39 PM, Dominique Belhachemi >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Jc, >>>> >>>> The license/copyright information for the files below is missing. Do >>>> you want to add those information? >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> Dominique >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ./Plugins/org.commontk.dah.core/Testing/Cpp/ctkDicomObjectLocatorCacheTest1.cpp >>>> >>>> ./Plugins/org.commontk.dah.core/Testing/Cpp/ctkDicomAppHostingTypesTest1.cpp >>>> >>>> ./Plugins/org.commontk.qtmobility.service/ctkQtMobilityServiceActivator_p.h >>>> >>>> ./Plugins/org.commontk.qtmobility.service/ctkQtMobilityServiceActivator.cpp >>>> ./Plugins/org.commontk.eventbus/ctkEventBusImpl_p.h >>>> ./Plugins/org.commontk.eventbus/ctkEventBusImpl.cpp >>>> ./Plugins/org.commontk.eventbus/ctkEventBusPlugin_p.h >>>> ./Plugins/org.commontk.eventbus/ctkEventHandlerWrapper_p.h >>>> ./Plugins/org.commontk.eventbus/ctkEventBusPlugin.cpp >>> >>> => Done >>> >>>> >>>> ./Libs/Visualization/VTK/Core/vtkLightBoxRendererManager.h >>>> >>>> >>>> ./Libs/Visualization/VTK/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkVTKObjectEventsObserverTest1.cpp >>>> >>>> ./Libs/Visualization/VTK/Core/Testing/Cpp/vtkLightBoxRendererManagerTest1.cpp >>>> ./Libs/Visualization/VTK/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkVTKObjectTestHelper.cpp >>>> ./Libs/Visualization/VTK/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkVTKConnectionTest1.cpp >>>> ./Libs/Visualization/VTK/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkVTKObjectTestHelper.h >>>> ./Libs/Visualization/VTK/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkVTKObjectTest1.cpp >>>> ./Libs/Visualization/VTK/Core/vtkLightBoxRendererManager.cpp >>> >>> => Done >>> >>> >>>> >>>> ./Libs/Scripting/Python/Core/Python/qt/__init__.py >>> >>> => No license added ... not sure it if make sens to add one ... >>> >>>> >>>> ./Libs/Core/CMake/TestBFD/TestBFD.cpp >>>> >>>> ./Libs/Core/ctkCommandLineParser.cpp >>>> >>>> ./Libs/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkBinaryFileDescriptorTestHelper.cpp >>>> ./Libs/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkCommandLineParserTest1.cpp >>>> ./Libs/Core/ctkPimpl.h >>>> ./Libs/Core/ctkCommandLineParser.h >>> >>> => Done >>> >>>> >>>> ./Libs/DICOM/Widgets/ctkDICOMQueryWidget.cpp >>>> ./Libs/DICOM/Widgets/Testing/Cpp/ctkDICOMImageTest1.cpp >>>> ./Libs/DICOM/Core/ctkDICOMPersonName.h >>>> ./Libs/DICOM/Core/ctkDICOMDataset.cpp >>>> ./Libs/DICOM/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkDICOMTest1.cpp >>>> ./Libs/DICOM/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkDICOMTesterTest2.cpp >>>> ./Libs/DICOM/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkDICOMTesterTest1.cpp >>>> ./Libs/DICOM/Core/ctkDICOMPersonName.cpp >>> >>> => Done >>> >>>> >>>> ./Applications/Testing/Cpp/ctkDICOMApplicationTest1.cpp >>>> >>>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/ctkSimplePythonShellMain.cpp >>>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/ctkSimplePythonQtDecorators.h >>>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/ctkTestWrappedQInvokable.h >>>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/ctkSimplePythonManager.h >>>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/ctkTestWrappedQListOfVTKObject.h >>> >>> => Done >>> >>>> >>>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/Testing/Python/derivedQWidgetTest.py >>>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/Testing/Python/wrappedVTKSlotTest.py >>>> >>>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/Testing/Python/wrappedQPropertyTest.py >>>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/Testing/Python/vtkPythonSmoke.py >>>> >>>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/Testing/Python/wrappedQInvokableTest.py >>>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/Testing/Python/wrappedSlotTest.py >>>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/Testing/Python/ctkWidgetsTest.py >>>> >>>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/Testing/Python/wrappedVTKQInvokableTest.py >>> >>> => No license added ... not sure it if make sens to add one ... >>> >>>> >>>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/ctkTestWrappedSlot.h >>>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/ctkTestWrappedVTKSlot.h >>>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/ctkTestWrappedQProperty.h >>>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/Python/ctkSimplePythonShell.py >>>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/ctkTestWrappedVTKQInvokable.h >>> >>> => Done >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Jean-Christophe Fillion-Robin >>>> wrote: >>>> > Hi Dominique, >>>> > >>>> > Please review the following topic: >>>> > ? https://github.com/jcfr/CTK/compare/master...fix-license-header >>>> > >>>> > 788f261 Use URL to refer to ParaView license version 1.2 >>>> > d4b55ab Fix indent in "Module" attribute associated with Paraview >>>> > license >>>> > header >>>> > 681c958 ctkBinaryFileDescriptor - Remove BWH Copyright year and fix >>>> > indent >>>> > 20cc5c8 Update license header associated with ctkVTKThumbnailViewTest1 >>>> > 56041fa Update license header associated with PythonQtDecorators >>>> > >>>> > Thanks >>>> > Jc >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Stephen Aylward >>>> > wrote: >>>> >> >>>> >> Hi Dominique, >>>> >> >>>> >> Thanks for asking and checking the files. >>>> >> >>>> >> All of CTK is suppose to be under the Apache 2.0 license. ? If you >>>> >> find files with any other licence, please let us know. ? We will fix >>>> >> them immediately. >>>> >> >>>> >> Regarding the holder of the copyright - I believe we decided that >>>> >> there would be no single copyright holder for CTK. ?The files are >>>> >> held >>>> >> by the individual contributors and/or their institutions. ? This is >>>> >> not how I would prefer things, because it creates an impression of >>>> >> complex ownership (whereas the Apache license assures the code will >>>> >> always be free for commercial and non-commercial use, and without >>>> >> patent restrictions to the best of our knowledge). >>>> >> >>>> >> The CTK members should probably re-address copyright assignments. ? I >>>> >> suggest we have the assignment go to the Insight Software Consortium >>>> >> (ISC) or some other independent entity. ? Hans Johnson at U of Iowa >>>> >> is >>>> >> the current president of the ISC, and he could ask the ISC board to >>>> >> accept CTK as an ISC-sponsored toolkit. ? More info on the ISC is at: >>>> >> http://insightsoftwareconsortium.org/ >>>> >> >>>> >> Stephen >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Dominique Belhachemi >>>> >> wrote: >>>> >> > Hi, >>>> >> > >>>> >> > I try to figure out whether or not the CTK source code can be >>>> >> > distributed. Now I am having a couple of questions. >>>> >> > >>>> >> > - Some files in the CTK repository are covered by the ParaView >>>> >> > license >>>> >> > version 1.2. Is it possible to add the referenced file >>>> >> > 'License_v1.2.txt' to the repository? >>>> >> > >>>> >> > - The Slicer license is missing as well. I found some statements >>>> >> > which >>>> >> > points to dead links: >>>> >> > ?"See Doc/copyright/copyright.txt >>>> >> > ?or http://www.slicer.org/copyright/copyright.txt for details." >>>> >> > >>>> >> > - Who is the main copyright holder of CTK? >>>> >> > >>>> >> > Thanks >>>> >> > Dominique >>>> >> > _______________________________________________ >>>> >> > Ctk-developers mailing list >>>> >> > Ctk-developers at commontk.org >>>> >> > http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers >>>> >> > >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> -- >>>> >> >>>> >> ============================== >>>> >> Stephen R. Aylward, Ph.D. >>>> >> Director of Medical Imaging Research >>>> >> Kitware, Inc. - North Carolina Office >>>> >> http://www.kitware.com >>>> >> stephen.aylward (Skype) >>>> >> (919) 969-6990 x300 >>>> >> _______________________________________________ >>>> >> Ctk-developers mailing list >>>> >> Ctk-developers at commontk.org >>>> >> http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > -- >>>> > +1 919 869 8849 >>>> > >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Ctk-developers mailing list >>>> Ctk-developers at commontk.org >>>> http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> +1 919 869 8849 >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> +1 919 869 8849 >> > > > > -- > +1 919 869 8849 > > > _______________________________________________ > Ctk-developers mailing list > Ctk-developers at commontk.org > http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers > > -- Mathieu From domibel at debian.org Thu Jul 14 14:18:22 2011 From: domibel at debian.org (Dominique Belhachemi) Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 10:18:22 -0400 Subject: [Ctk-developers] CTK license and copyright In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yes, this is a wonderful tool for a basic check. As usually I am using licensecheck and grep for the checks. Later, before uploading, I go manually through the files to check If I catched everything. Cheers Dominique On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 3:49 AM, Mathieu Malaterre wrote: > This is a tool available at least on debian, called licensecheck (usr > -r for recursive checking) > > HTH > > On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 2:12 AM, Jean-Christophe Fillion-Robin > wrote: >> Dominique, >> >> I integrated the topic " fix-license-header". >> >> Out of curiosity, which method/script did you use to find out which file >> where missing a license ? >> >> See >> https://github.com/commontk/CTK/commit/6fe14129c4318c47df771969818fbbe12000c465 >> >> Thanks >> Jc >> >> On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 8:07 PM, Jean-Christophe Fillion-Robin >> wrote: >>> >>> Steve, >>> >>> ?I noticed that you updated some files with the proper copyright (Isomics, >>> Inc). >>> See >>> https://github.com/commontk/CTK/commit/16404dfd91721a638ffed1f9ec9fadcbe591335e >>> >>> Note: Having already started and published a topic named >>> fix-license-header, it would have been "better" to checkout that topic, add >>> your commit and publish your commit back on your fork ...? :p >>> See >>> https://github.com/commontk/CTK/commit/16404dfd91721a638ffed1f9ec9fadcbe591335e >>> >>> I will go ahead and integrate that topic. >>> >>> Thanks >>> Jc >>> >>> On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 7:14 PM, Jean-Christophe Fillion-Robin >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Folks, >>>> >>>> I added a license on all *.h and *.cpp files. >>>> >>>> See https://github.com/jcfr/CTK/compare/master...fix-license-header >>>> >>>> //----------------------------------- >>>> Note: I added the appropriate license using the following script to >>>> determine the first author. >>>> >>>> ?for i in `cat headers.txt`; \ >>>> ? do a=`git log --follow --format="%an" $i? | tail -n 1`;\ >>>> ? echo "$a --- $i"; \ >>>> done >>>> >>>> //----------------------------------- >>>> Few questions: >>>> >>>> * What is the best practice regarding python script ? How should we >>>> integrate the license ? docstring, ... ? >>>> >>>> * The files authored by Steve Pieper mention "Kitware, Inc." in the >>>> copyright. >>>> >>>> Steve> I believe the license in these files is a byproduct of copy/paste. >>>> Do you want to keep it like that of should we change it ? Would you prefer >>>> "Isomics, Inc." instead ? >>>> >>>> To get the list of files authored by Steve Pieper, the following could be >>>> done: >>>> >>>> for i in `find . -type f -path '.git' -prune -o -print`; \ >>>> ? do a=`git log --follow --format="%an" $i? | tail -n 1`; echo "$a --- >>>> $i"; \ >>>> done | ack Pieper >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> Jc >>>> >>>> On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 2:39 PM, Dominique Belhachemi >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Jc, >>>>> >>>>> The license/copyright information for the files below is missing. Do >>>>> you want to add those information? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks >>>>> Dominique >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ./Plugins/org.commontk.dah.core/Testing/Cpp/ctkDicomObjectLocatorCacheTest1.cpp >>>>> >>>>> ./Plugins/org.commontk.dah.core/Testing/Cpp/ctkDicomAppHostingTypesTest1.cpp >>>>> >>>>> ./Plugins/org.commontk.qtmobility.service/ctkQtMobilityServiceActivator_p.h >>>>> >>>>> ./Plugins/org.commontk.qtmobility.service/ctkQtMobilityServiceActivator.cpp >>>>> ./Plugins/org.commontk.eventbus/ctkEventBusImpl_p.h >>>>> ./Plugins/org.commontk.eventbus/ctkEventBusImpl.cpp >>>>> ./Plugins/org.commontk.eventbus/ctkEventBusPlugin_p.h >>>>> ./Plugins/org.commontk.eventbus/ctkEventHandlerWrapper_p.h >>>>> ./Plugins/org.commontk.eventbus/ctkEventBusPlugin.cpp >>>> >>>> => Done >>>> >>>>> >>>>> ./Libs/Visualization/VTK/Core/vtkLightBoxRendererManager.h >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ./Libs/Visualization/VTK/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkVTKObjectEventsObserverTest1.cpp >>>>> >>>>> ./Libs/Visualization/VTK/Core/Testing/Cpp/vtkLightBoxRendererManagerTest1.cpp >>>>> ./Libs/Visualization/VTK/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkVTKObjectTestHelper.cpp >>>>> ./Libs/Visualization/VTK/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkVTKConnectionTest1.cpp >>>>> ./Libs/Visualization/VTK/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkVTKObjectTestHelper.h >>>>> ./Libs/Visualization/VTK/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkVTKObjectTest1.cpp >>>>> ./Libs/Visualization/VTK/Core/vtkLightBoxRendererManager.cpp >>>> >>>> => Done >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> ./Libs/Scripting/Python/Core/Python/qt/__init__.py >>>> >>>> => No license added ... not sure it if make sens to add one ... >>>> >>>>> >>>>> ./Libs/Core/CMake/TestBFD/TestBFD.cpp >>>>> >>>>> ./Libs/Core/ctkCommandLineParser.cpp >>>>> >>>>> ./Libs/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkBinaryFileDescriptorTestHelper.cpp >>>>> ./Libs/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkCommandLineParserTest1.cpp >>>>> ./Libs/Core/ctkPimpl.h >>>>> ./Libs/Core/ctkCommandLineParser.h >>>> >>>> => Done >>>> >>>>> >>>>> ./Libs/DICOM/Widgets/ctkDICOMQueryWidget.cpp >>>>> ./Libs/DICOM/Widgets/Testing/Cpp/ctkDICOMImageTest1.cpp >>>>> ./Libs/DICOM/Core/ctkDICOMPersonName.h >>>>> ./Libs/DICOM/Core/ctkDICOMDataset.cpp >>>>> ./Libs/DICOM/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkDICOMTest1.cpp >>>>> ./Libs/DICOM/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkDICOMTesterTest2.cpp >>>>> ./Libs/DICOM/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkDICOMTesterTest1.cpp >>>>> ./Libs/DICOM/Core/ctkDICOMPersonName.cpp >>>> >>>> => Done >>>> >>>>> >>>>> ./Applications/Testing/Cpp/ctkDICOMApplicationTest1.cpp >>>>> >>>>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/ctkSimplePythonShellMain.cpp >>>>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/ctkSimplePythonQtDecorators.h >>>>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/ctkTestWrappedQInvokable.h >>>>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/ctkSimplePythonManager.h >>>>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/ctkTestWrappedQListOfVTKObject.h >>>> >>>> => Done >>>> >>>>> >>>>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/Testing/Python/derivedQWidgetTest.py >>>>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/Testing/Python/wrappedVTKSlotTest.py >>>>> >>>>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/Testing/Python/wrappedQPropertyTest.py >>>>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/Testing/Python/vtkPythonSmoke.py >>>>> >>>>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/Testing/Python/wrappedQInvokableTest.py >>>>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/Testing/Python/wrappedSlotTest.py >>>>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/Testing/Python/ctkWidgetsTest.py >>>>> >>>>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/Testing/Python/wrappedVTKQInvokableTest.py >>>> >>>> => No license added ... not sure it if make sens to add one ... >>>> >>>>> >>>>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/ctkTestWrappedSlot.h >>>>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/ctkTestWrappedVTKSlot.h >>>>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/ctkTestWrappedQProperty.h >>>>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/Python/ctkSimplePythonShell.py >>>>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/ctkTestWrappedVTKQInvokable.h >>>> >>>> => Done >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Jean-Christophe Fillion-Robin >>>>> wrote: >>>>> > Hi Dominique, >>>>> > >>>>> > Please review the following topic: >>>>> > ? https://github.com/jcfr/CTK/compare/master...fix-license-header >>>>> > >>>>> > 788f261 Use URL to refer to ParaView license version 1.2 >>>>> > d4b55ab Fix indent in "Module" attribute associated with Paraview >>>>> > license >>>>> > header >>>>> > 681c958 ctkBinaryFileDescriptor - Remove BWH Copyright year and fix >>>>> > indent >>>>> > 20cc5c8 Update license header associated with ctkVTKThumbnailViewTest1 >>>>> > 56041fa Update license header associated with PythonQtDecorators >>>>> > >>>>> > Thanks >>>>> > Jc >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Stephen Aylward >>>>> > wrote: >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Hi Dominique, >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Thanks for asking and checking the files. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> All of CTK is suppose to be under the Apache 2.0 license. ? If you >>>>> >> find files with any other licence, please let us know. ? We will fix >>>>> >> them immediately. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Regarding the holder of the copyright - I believe we decided that >>>>> >> there would be no single copyright holder for CTK. ?The files are >>>>> >> held >>>>> >> by the individual contributors and/or their institutions. ? This is >>>>> >> not how I would prefer things, because it creates an impression of >>>>> >> complex ownership (whereas the Apache license assures the code will >>>>> >> always be free for commercial and non-commercial use, and without >>>>> >> patent restrictions to the best of our knowledge). >>>>> >> >>>>> >> The CTK members should probably re-address copyright assignments. ? I >>>>> >> suggest we have the assignment go to the Insight Software Consortium >>>>> >> (ISC) or some other independent entity. ? Hans Johnson at U of Iowa >>>>> >> is >>>>> >> the current president of the ISC, and he could ask the ISC board to >>>>> >> accept CTK as an ISC-sponsored toolkit. ? More info on the ISC is at: >>>>> >> http://insightsoftwareconsortium.org/ >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Stephen >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Dominique Belhachemi >>>>> >> wrote: >>>>> >> > Hi, >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> > I try to figure out whether or not the CTK source code can be >>>>> >> > distributed. Now I am having a couple of questions. >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> > - Some files in the CTK repository are covered by the ParaView >>>>> >> > license >>>>> >> > version 1.2. Is it possible to add the referenced file >>>>> >> > 'License_v1.2.txt' to the repository? >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> > - The Slicer license is missing as well. I found some statements >>>>> >> > which >>>>> >> > points to dead links: >>>>> >> > ?"See Doc/copyright/copyright.txt >>>>> >> > ?or http://www.slicer.org/copyright/copyright.txt for details." >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> > - Who is the main copyright holder of CTK? >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> > Thanks >>>>> >> > Dominique >>>>> >> > _______________________________________________ >>>>> >> > Ctk-developers mailing list >>>>> >> > Ctk-developers at commontk.org >>>>> >> > http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> -- >>>>> >> >>>>> >> ============================== >>>>> >> Stephen R. Aylward, Ph.D. >>>>> >> Director of Medical Imaging Research >>>>> >> Kitware, Inc. - North Carolina Office >>>>> >> http://www.kitware.com >>>>> >> stephen.aylward (Skype) >>>>> >> (919) 969-6990 x300 >>>>> >> _______________________________________________ >>>>> >> Ctk-developers mailing list >>>>> >> Ctk-developers at commontk.org >>>>> >> http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > -- >>>>> > +1 919 869 8849 >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Ctk-developers mailing list >>>>> Ctk-developers at commontk.org >>>>> http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> +1 919 869 8849 >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> +1 919 869 8849 >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> +1 919 869 8849 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Ctk-developers mailing list >> Ctk-developers at commontk.org >> http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers >> >> > > > > -- > Mathieu > From jchris.fillionr at kitware.com Thu Jul 14 16:17:01 2011 From: jchris.fillionr at kitware.com (Jean-Christophe Fillion-Robin) Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 12:17:01 -0400 Subject: [Ctk-developers] CTK license and copyright In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Excellent ! For reference, I just found the following links: - http://manpages.ubuntu.com/manpages/natty/man1/licensecheck.1.html - https://wiki.ubuntu.com/LicenseReviewProcessImprovementSpec Would you like to create a CMake module named for example LicenseCheckTest.cmake ? :) That module could for example contain a macro named: add_licensecheck_test(NAME FILES ....) The test would fail with the list of files not having a license. We could also think about an option allowing to specify keywords representative of the incompatible license ... That way we would have a systematic way of making sure that source files have the proper license header ... Using githook to prevent the problem of happening upstream could also be a solution ... What do you think? Thanks Jc On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 10:18 AM, Dominique Belhachemi wrote: > Yes, this is a wonderful tool for a basic check. As usually I am using > licensecheck and grep for the checks. Later, before uploading, I go > manually through the files to check If I catched everything. > > Cheers > Dominique > > On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 3:49 AM, Mathieu Malaterre > wrote: > > This is a tool available at least on debian, called licensecheck (usr > > -r for recursive checking) > > > > HTH > > > > On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 2:12 AM, Jean-Christophe Fillion-Robin > > wrote: > >> Dominique, > >> > >> I integrated the topic " fix-license-header". > >> > >> Out of curiosity, which method/script did you use to find out which file > >> where missing a license ? > >> > >> See > >> > https://github.com/commontk/CTK/commit/6fe14129c4318c47df771969818fbbe12000c465 > >> > >> Thanks > >> Jc > >> > >> On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 8:07 PM, Jean-Christophe Fillion-Robin > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> Steve, > >>> > >>> I noticed that you updated some files with the proper copyright > (Isomics, > >>> Inc). > >>> See > >>> > https://github.com/commontk/CTK/commit/16404dfd91721a638ffed1f9ec9fadcbe591335e > >>> > >>> Note: Having already started and published a topic named > >>> fix-license-header, it would have been "better" to checkout that topic, > add > >>> your commit and publish your commit back on your fork ... :p > >>> See > >>> > https://github.com/commontk/CTK/commit/16404dfd91721a638ffed1f9ec9fadcbe591335e > >>> > >>> I will go ahead and integrate that topic. > >>> > >>> Thanks > >>> Jc > >>> > >>> On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 7:14 PM, Jean-Christophe Fillion-Robin > >>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Hi Folks, > >>>> > >>>> I added a license on all *.h and *.cpp files. > >>>> > >>>> See https://github.com/jcfr/CTK/compare/master...fix-license-header > >>>> > >>>> //----------------------------------- > >>>> Note: I added the appropriate license using the following script to > >>>> determine the first author. > >>>> > >>>> for i in `cat headers.txt`; \ > >>>> do a=`git log --follow --format="%an" $i | tail -n 1`;\ > >>>> echo "$a --- $i"; \ > >>>> done > >>>> > >>>> //----------------------------------- > >>>> Few questions: > >>>> > >>>> * What is the best practice regarding python script ? How should we > >>>> integrate the license ? docstring, ... ? > >>>> > >>>> * The files authored by Steve Pieper mention "Kitware, Inc." in the > >>>> copyright. > >>>> > >>>> Steve> I believe the license in these files is a byproduct of > copy/paste. > >>>> Do you want to keep it like that of should we change it ? Would you > prefer > >>>> "Isomics, Inc." instead ? > >>>> > >>>> To get the list of files authored by Steve Pieper, the following could > be > >>>> done: > >>>> > >>>> for i in `find . -type f -path '.git' -prune -o -print`; \ > >>>> do a=`git log --follow --format="%an" $i | tail -n 1`; echo "$a --- > >>>> $i"; \ > >>>> done | ack Pieper > >>>> > >>>> Thanks > >>>> Jc > >>>> > >>>> On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 2:39 PM, Dominique Belhachemi < > domibel at debian.org> > >>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Hi Jc, > >>>>> > >>>>> The license/copyright information for the files below is missing. Do > >>>>> you want to add those information? > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks > >>>>> Dominique > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > ./Plugins/org.commontk.dah.core/Testing/Cpp/ctkDicomObjectLocatorCacheTest1.cpp > >>>>> > >>>>> > ./Plugins/org.commontk.dah.core/Testing/Cpp/ctkDicomAppHostingTypesTest1.cpp > >>>>> > >>>>> > ./Plugins/org.commontk.qtmobility.service/ctkQtMobilityServiceActivator_p.h > >>>>> > >>>>> > ./Plugins/org.commontk.qtmobility.service/ctkQtMobilityServiceActivator.cpp > >>>>> ./Plugins/org.commontk.eventbus/ctkEventBusImpl_p.h > >>>>> ./Plugins/org.commontk.eventbus/ctkEventBusImpl.cpp > >>>>> ./Plugins/org.commontk.eventbus/ctkEventBusPlugin_p.h > >>>>> ./Plugins/org.commontk.eventbus/ctkEventHandlerWrapper_p.h > >>>>> ./Plugins/org.commontk.eventbus/ctkEventBusPlugin.cpp > >>>> > >>>> => Done > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> ./Libs/Visualization/VTK/Core/vtkLightBoxRendererManager.h > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > ./Libs/Visualization/VTK/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkVTKObjectEventsObserverTest1.cpp > >>>>> > >>>>> > ./Libs/Visualization/VTK/Core/Testing/Cpp/vtkLightBoxRendererManagerTest1.cpp > >>>>> ./Libs/Visualization/VTK/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkVTKObjectTestHelper.cpp > >>>>> ./Libs/Visualization/VTK/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkVTKConnectionTest1.cpp > >>>>> ./Libs/Visualization/VTK/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkVTKObjectTestHelper.h > >>>>> ./Libs/Visualization/VTK/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkVTKObjectTest1.cpp > >>>>> ./Libs/Visualization/VTK/Core/vtkLightBoxRendererManager.cpp > >>>> > >>>> => Done > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> ./Libs/Scripting/Python/Core/Python/qt/__init__.py > >>>> > >>>> => No license added ... not sure it if make sens to add one ... > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> ./Libs/Core/CMake/TestBFD/TestBFD.cpp > >>>>> > >>>>> ./Libs/Core/ctkCommandLineParser.cpp > >>>>> > >>>>> ./Libs/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkBinaryFileDescriptorTestHelper.cpp > >>>>> ./Libs/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkCommandLineParserTest1.cpp > >>>>> ./Libs/Core/ctkPimpl.h > >>>>> ./Libs/Core/ctkCommandLineParser.h > >>>> > >>>> => Done > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> ./Libs/DICOM/Widgets/ctkDICOMQueryWidget.cpp > >>>>> ./Libs/DICOM/Widgets/Testing/Cpp/ctkDICOMImageTest1.cpp > >>>>> ./Libs/DICOM/Core/ctkDICOMPersonName.h > >>>>> ./Libs/DICOM/Core/ctkDICOMDataset.cpp > >>>>> ./Libs/DICOM/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkDICOMTest1.cpp > >>>>> ./Libs/DICOM/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkDICOMTesterTest2.cpp > >>>>> ./Libs/DICOM/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkDICOMTesterTest1.cpp > >>>>> ./Libs/DICOM/Core/ctkDICOMPersonName.cpp > >>>> > >>>> => Done > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> ./Applications/Testing/Cpp/ctkDICOMApplicationTest1.cpp > >>>>> > >>>>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/ctkSimplePythonShellMain.cpp > >>>>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/ctkSimplePythonQtDecorators.h > >>>>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/ctkTestWrappedQInvokable.h > >>>>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/ctkSimplePythonManager.h > >>>>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/ctkTestWrappedQListOfVTKObject.h > >>>> > >>>> => Done > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/Testing/Python/derivedQWidgetTest.py > >>>>> > ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/Testing/Python/wrappedVTKSlotTest.py > >>>>> > >>>>> > ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/Testing/Python/wrappedQPropertyTest.py > >>>>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/Testing/Python/vtkPythonSmoke.py > >>>>> > >>>>> > ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/Testing/Python/wrappedQInvokableTest.py > >>>>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/Testing/Python/wrappedSlotTest.py > >>>>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/Testing/Python/ctkWidgetsTest.py > >>>>> > >>>>> > ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/Testing/Python/wrappedVTKQInvokableTest.py > >>>> > >>>> => No license added ... not sure it if make sens to add one ... > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/ctkTestWrappedSlot.h > >>>>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/ctkTestWrappedVTKSlot.h > >>>>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/ctkTestWrappedQProperty.h > >>>>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/Python/ctkSimplePythonShell.py > >>>>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/ctkTestWrappedVTKQInvokable.h > >>>> > >>>> => Done > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Jean-Christophe Fillion-Robin > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>> > Hi Dominique, > >>>>> > > >>>>> > Please review the following topic: > >>>>> > https://github.com/jcfr/CTK/compare/master...fix-license-header > >>>>> > > >>>>> > 788f261 Use URL to refer to ParaView license version 1.2 > >>>>> > d4b55ab Fix indent in "Module" attribute associated with Paraview > >>>>> > license > >>>>> > header > >>>>> > 681c958 ctkBinaryFileDescriptor - Remove BWH Copyright year and fix > >>>>> > indent > >>>>> > 20cc5c8 Update license header associated with > ctkVTKThumbnailViewTest1 > >>>>> > 56041fa Update license header associated with PythonQtDecorators > >>>>> > > >>>>> > Thanks > >>>>> > Jc > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Stephen Aylward > >>>>> > wrote: > >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> Hi Dominique, > >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> Thanks for asking and checking the files. > >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> All of CTK is suppose to be under the Apache 2.0 license. If you > >>>>> >> find files with any other licence, please let us know. We will > fix > >>>>> >> them immediately. > >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> Regarding the holder of the copyright - I believe we decided that > >>>>> >> there would be no single copyright holder for CTK. The files are > >>>>> >> held > >>>>> >> by the individual contributors and/or their institutions. This > is > >>>>> >> not how I would prefer things, because it creates an impression of > >>>>> >> complex ownership (whereas the Apache license assures the code > will > >>>>> >> always be free for commercial and non-commercial use, and without > >>>>> >> patent restrictions to the best of our knowledge). > >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> The CTK members should probably re-address copyright assignments. > I > >>>>> >> suggest we have the assignment go to the Insight Software > Consortium > >>>>> >> (ISC) or some other independent entity. Hans Johnson at U of > Iowa > >>>>> >> is > >>>>> >> the current president of the ISC, and he could ask the ISC board > to > >>>>> >> accept CTK as an ISC-sponsored toolkit. More info on the ISC is > at: > >>>>> >> http://insightsoftwareconsortium.org/ > >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> Stephen > >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Dominique Belhachemi > >>>>> >> wrote: > >>>>> >> > Hi, > >>>>> >> > > >>>>> >> > I try to figure out whether or not the CTK source code can be > >>>>> >> > distributed. Now I am having a couple of questions. > >>>>> >> > > >>>>> >> > - Some files in the CTK repository are covered by the ParaView > >>>>> >> > license > >>>>> >> > version 1.2. Is it possible to add the referenced file > >>>>> >> > 'License_v1.2.txt' to the repository? > >>>>> >> > > >>>>> >> > - The Slicer license is missing as well. I found some statements > >>>>> >> > which > >>>>> >> > points to dead links: > >>>>> >> > "See Doc/copyright/copyright.txt > >>>>> >> > or http://www.slicer.org/copyright/copyright.txt for details." > >>>>> >> > > >>>>> >> > - Who is the main copyright holder of CTK? > >>>>> >> > > >>>>> >> > Thanks > >>>>> >> > Dominique > >>>>> >> > _______________________________________________ > >>>>> >> > Ctk-developers mailing list > >>>>> >> > Ctk-developers at commontk.org > >>>>> >> > > http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers > >>>>> >> > > >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> -- > >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> ============================== > >>>>> >> Stephen R. Aylward, Ph.D. > >>>>> >> Director of Medical Imaging Research > >>>>> >> Kitware, Inc. - North Carolina Office > >>>>> >> http://www.kitware.com > >>>>> >> stephen.aylward (Skype) > >>>>> >> (919) 969-6990 x300 > >>>>> >> _______________________________________________ > >>>>> >> Ctk-developers mailing list > >>>>> >> Ctk-developers at commontk.org > >>>>> >> http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > -- > >>>>> > +1 919 869 8849 > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>> Ctk-developers mailing list > >>>>> Ctk-developers at commontk.org > >>>>> http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> +1 919 869 8849 > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> +1 919 869 8849 > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> +1 919 869 8849 > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Ctk-developers mailing list > >> Ctk-developers at commontk.org > >> http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers > >> > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Mathieu > > > -- +1 919 869 8849 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From domibel at debian.org Sat Jul 16 02:28:05 2011 From: domibel at debian.org (Dominique Belhachemi) Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 22:28:05 -0400 Subject: [Ctk-developers] CTK license and copyright In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Jc, A CMake module sounds like a wonderful idea. I will put it somewhere high on my Debian todo list. For me this is a good chance to learn more about the internals of CMake. FYI, For Debian packages it is not necessary that every file contains a license if there is a README file which clarifies the license/copyright situation for the whole project. For example think about .cmake files, only few people add a license to those files, but they are still covered by the 'main' license. Cheers Dominique On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 12:17 PM, Jean-Christophe Fillion-Robin wrote: > Excellent ! > > For reference, I just found the following links: > ?- http://manpages.ubuntu.com/manpages/natty/man1/licensecheck.1.html > ?- https://wiki.ubuntu.com/LicenseReviewProcessImprovementSpec > > Would you like to create a CMake module named for example > LicenseCheckTest.cmake ?? :) > > That module could for example contain a macro named: > add_licensecheck_test(NAME FILES ....) > > The test would fail with the list of files not having a license. > > We could also think about an option allowing to specify keywords > representative of the incompatible license ... > > That way we would have a systematic way of making sure that source files > have the proper license header ... > > Using githook to prevent the problem of happening upstream could also be a > solution ... > > What do you think? > > Thanks > Jc > > > On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 10:18 AM, Dominique Belhachemi > wrote: >> >> Yes, this is a wonderful tool for a basic check. As usually I am using >> licensecheck and grep for the checks. Later, before uploading, I go >> manually through the files to check If I catched everything. >> >> Cheers >> Dominique >> >> On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 3:49 AM, Mathieu Malaterre >> wrote: >> > This is a tool available at least on debian, called licensecheck (usr >> > -r for recursive checking) >> > >> > HTH >> > >> > On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 2:12 AM, Jean-Christophe Fillion-Robin >> > wrote: >> >> Dominique, >> >> >> >> I integrated the topic " fix-license-header". >> >> >> >> Out of curiosity, which method/script did you use to find out which >> >> file >> >> where missing a license ? >> >> >> >> See >> >> >> >> https://github.com/commontk/CTK/commit/6fe14129c4318c47df771969818fbbe12000c465 >> >> >> >> Thanks >> >> Jc >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 8:07 PM, Jean-Christophe Fillion-Robin >> >> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Steve, >> >>> >> >>> ?I noticed that you updated some files with the proper copyright >> >>> (Isomics, >> >>> Inc). >> >>> See >> >>> >> >>> https://github.com/commontk/CTK/commit/16404dfd91721a638ffed1f9ec9fadcbe591335e >> >>> >> >>> Note: Having already started and published a topic named >> >>> fix-license-header, it would have been "better" to checkout that >> >>> topic, add >> >>> your commit and publish your commit back on your fork ...? :p >> >>> See >> >>> >> >>> https://github.com/commontk/CTK/commit/16404dfd91721a638ffed1f9ec9fadcbe591335e >> >>> >> >>> I will go ahead and integrate that topic. >> >>> >> >>> Thanks >> >>> Jc >> >>> >> >>> On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 7:14 PM, Jean-Christophe Fillion-Robin >> >>> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> Hi Folks, >> >>>> >> >>>> I added a license on all *.h and *.cpp files. >> >>>> >> >>>> See https://github.com/jcfr/CTK/compare/master...fix-license-header >> >>>> >> >>>> //----------------------------------- >> >>>> Note: I added the appropriate license using the following script to >> >>>> determine the first author. >> >>>> >> >>>> ?for i in `cat headers.txt`; \ >> >>>> ? do a=`git log --follow --format="%an" $i? | tail -n 1`;\ >> >>>> ? echo "$a --- $i"; \ >> >>>> done >> >>>> >> >>>> //----------------------------------- >> >>>> Few questions: >> >>>> >> >>>> * What is the best practice regarding python script ? How should we >> >>>> integrate the license ? docstring, ... ? >> >>>> >> >>>> * The files authored by Steve Pieper mention "Kitware, Inc." in the >> >>>> copyright. >> >>>> >> >>>> Steve> I believe the license in these files is a byproduct of >> >>>> copy/paste. >> >>>> Do you want to keep it like that of should we change it ? Would you >> >>>> prefer >> >>>> "Isomics, Inc." instead ? >> >>>> >> >>>> To get the list of files authored by Steve Pieper, the following >> >>>> could be >> >>>> done: >> >>>> >> >>>> for i in `find . -type f -path '.git' -prune -o -print`; \ >> >>>> ? do a=`git log --follow --format="%an" $i? | tail -n 1`; echo "$a >> >>>> --- >> >>>> $i"; \ >> >>>> done | ack Pieper >> >>>> >> >>>> Thanks >> >>>> Jc >> >>>> >> >>>> On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 2:39 PM, Dominique Belhachemi >> >>>> >> >>>> wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Hi Jc, >> >>>>> >> >>>>> The license/copyright information for the files below is missing. Do >> >>>>> you want to add those information? >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Thanks >> >>>>> Dominique >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> ./Plugins/org.commontk.dah.core/Testing/Cpp/ctkDicomObjectLocatorCacheTest1.cpp >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> ./Plugins/org.commontk.dah.core/Testing/Cpp/ctkDicomAppHostingTypesTest1.cpp >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> ./Plugins/org.commontk.qtmobility.service/ctkQtMobilityServiceActivator_p.h >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> ./Plugins/org.commontk.qtmobility.service/ctkQtMobilityServiceActivator.cpp >> >>>>> ./Plugins/org.commontk.eventbus/ctkEventBusImpl_p.h >> >>>>> ./Plugins/org.commontk.eventbus/ctkEventBusImpl.cpp >> >>>>> ./Plugins/org.commontk.eventbus/ctkEventBusPlugin_p.h >> >>>>> ./Plugins/org.commontk.eventbus/ctkEventHandlerWrapper_p.h >> >>>>> ./Plugins/org.commontk.eventbus/ctkEventBusPlugin.cpp >> >>>> >> >>>> => Done >> >>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> ./Libs/Visualization/VTK/Core/vtkLightBoxRendererManager.h >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> ./Libs/Visualization/VTK/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkVTKObjectEventsObserverTest1.cpp >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> ./Libs/Visualization/VTK/Core/Testing/Cpp/vtkLightBoxRendererManagerTest1.cpp >> >>>>> ./Libs/Visualization/VTK/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkVTKObjectTestHelper.cpp >> >>>>> ./Libs/Visualization/VTK/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkVTKConnectionTest1.cpp >> >>>>> ./Libs/Visualization/VTK/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkVTKObjectTestHelper.h >> >>>>> ./Libs/Visualization/VTK/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkVTKObjectTest1.cpp >> >>>>> ./Libs/Visualization/VTK/Core/vtkLightBoxRendererManager.cpp >> >>>> >> >>>> => Done >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> ./Libs/Scripting/Python/Core/Python/qt/__init__.py >> >>>> >> >>>> => No license added ... not sure it if make sens to add one ... >> >>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> ./Libs/Core/CMake/TestBFD/TestBFD.cpp >> >>>>> >> >>>>> ./Libs/Core/ctkCommandLineParser.cpp >> >>>>> >> >>>>> ./Libs/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkBinaryFileDescriptorTestHelper.cpp >> >>>>> ./Libs/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkCommandLineParserTest1.cpp >> >>>>> ./Libs/Core/ctkPimpl.h >> >>>>> ./Libs/Core/ctkCommandLineParser.h >> >>>> >> >>>> => Done >> >>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> ./Libs/DICOM/Widgets/ctkDICOMQueryWidget.cpp >> >>>>> ./Libs/DICOM/Widgets/Testing/Cpp/ctkDICOMImageTest1.cpp >> >>>>> ./Libs/DICOM/Core/ctkDICOMPersonName.h >> >>>>> ./Libs/DICOM/Core/ctkDICOMDataset.cpp >> >>>>> ./Libs/DICOM/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkDICOMTest1.cpp >> >>>>> ./Libs/DICOM/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkDICOMTesterTest2.cpp >> >>>>> ./Libs/DICOM/Core/Testing/Cpp/ctkDICOMTesterTest1.cpp >> >>>>> ./Libs/DICOM/Core/ctkDICOMPersonName.cpp >> >>>> >> >>>> => Done >> >>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> ./Applications/Testing/Cpp/ctkDICOMApplicationTest1.cpp >> >>>>> >> >>>>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/ctkSimplePythonShellMain.cpp >> >>>>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/ctkSimplePythonQtDecorators.h >> >>>>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/ctkTestWrappedQInvokable.h >> >>>>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/ctkSimplePythonManager.h >> >>>>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/ctkTestWrappedQListOfVTKObject.h >> >>>> >> >>>> => Done >> >>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/Testing/Python/derivedQWidgetTest.py >> >>>>> >> >>>>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/Testing/Python/wrappedVTKSlotTest.py >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/Testing/Python/wrappedQPropertyTest.py >> >>>>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/Testing/Python/vtkPythonSmoke.py >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/Testing/Python/wrappedQInvokableTest.py >> >>>>> >> >>>>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/Testing/Python/wrappedSlotTest.py >> >>>>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/Testing/Python/ctkWidgetsTest.py >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/Testing/Python/wrappedVTKQInvokableTest.py >> >>>> >> >>>> => No license added ... not sure it if make sens to add one ... >> >>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/ctkTestWrappedSlot.h >> >>>>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/ctkTestWrappedVTKSlot.h >> >>>>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/ctkTestWrappedQProperty.h >> >>>>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/Python/ctkSimplePythonShell.py >> >>>>> ./Applications/ctkSimplePythonShell/ctkTestWrappedVTKQInvokable.h >> >>>> >> >>>> => Done >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Jean-Christophe Fillion-Robin >> >>>>> wrote: >> >>>>> > Hi Dominique, >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > Please review the following topic: >> >>>>> > ? https://github.com/jcfr/CTK/compare/master...fix-license-header >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > 788f261 Use URL to refer to ParaView license version 1.2 >> >>>>> > d4b55ab Fix indent in "Module" attribute associated with Paraview >> >>>>> > license >> >>>>> > header >> >>>>> > 681c958 ctkBinaryFileDescriptor - Remove BWH Copyright year and >> >>>>> > fix >> >>>>> > indent >> >>>>> > 20cc5c8 Update license header associated with >> >>>>> > ctkVTKThumbnailViewTest1 >> >>>>> > 56041fa Update license header associated with PythonQtDecorators >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > Thanks >> >>>>> > Jc >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Stephen Aylward >> >>>>> > wrote: >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> Hi Dominique, >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> Thanks for asking and checking the files. >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> All of CTK is suppose to be under the Apache 2.0 license. ? If >> >>>>> >> you >> >>>>> >> find files with any other licence, please let us know. ? We will >> >>>>> >> fix >> >>>>> >> them immediately. >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> Regarding the holder of the copyright - I believe we decided that >> >>>>> >> there would be no single copyright holder for CTK. ?The files are >> >>>>> >> held >> >>>>> >> by the individual contributors and/or their institutions. ? This >> >>>>> >> is >> >>>>> >> not how I would prefer things, because it creates an impression >> >>>>> >> of >> >>>>> >> complex ownership (whereas the Apache license assures the code >> >>>>> >> will >> >>>>> >> always be free for commercial and non-commercial use, and without >> >>>>> >> patent restrictions to the best of our knowledge). >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> The CTK members should probably re-address copyright assignments. >> >>>>> >> ? I >> >>>>> >> suggest we have the assignment go to the Insight Software >> >>>>> >> Consortium >> >>>>> >> (ISC) or some other independent entity. ? Hans Johnson at U of >> >>>>> >> Iowa >> >>>>> >> is >> >>>>> >> the current president of the ISC, and he could ask the ISC board >> >>>>> >> to >> >>>>> >> accept CTK as an ISC-sponsored toolkit. ? More info on the ISC is >> >>>>> >> at: >> >>>>> >> http://insightsoftwareconsortium.org/ >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> Stephen >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Dominique Belhachemi >> >>>>> >> wrote: >> >>>>> >> > Hi, >> >>>>> >> > >> >>>>> >> > I try to figure out whether or not the CTK source code can be >> >>>>> >> > distributed. Now I am having a couple of questions. >> >>>>> >> > >> >>>>> >> > - Some files in the CTK repository are covered by the ParaView >> >>>>> >> > license >> >>>>> >> > version 1.2. Is it possible to add the referenced file >> >>>>> >> > 'License_v1.2.txt' to the repository? >> >>>>> >> > >> >>>>> >> > - The Slicer license is missing as well. I found some >> >>>>> >> > statements >> >>>>> >> > which >> >>>>> >> > points to dead links: >> >>>>> >> > ?"See Doc/copyright/copyright.txt >> >>>>> >> > ?or http://www.slicer.org/copyright/copyright.txt for details." >> >>>>> >> > >> >>>>> >> > - Who is the main copyright holder of CTK? >> >>>>> >> > >> >>>>> >> > Thanks >> >>>>> >> > Dominique >> >>>>> >> > _______________________________________________ >> >>>>> >> > Ctk-developers mailing list >> >>>>> >> > Ctk-developers at commontk.org >> >>>>> >> > >> >>>>> >> > http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers >> >>>>> >> > >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> -- >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> ============================== >> >>>>> >> Stephen R. Aylward, Ph.D. >> >>>>> >> Director of Medical Imaging Research >> >>>>> >> Kitware, Inc. - North Carolina Office >> >>>>> >> http://www.kitware.com >> >>>>> >> stephen.aylward (Skype) >> >>>>> >> (919) 969-6990 x300 >> >>>>> >> _______________________________________________ >> >>>>> >> Ctk-developers mailing list >> >>>>> >> Ctk-developers at commontk.org >> >>>>> >> http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > -- >> >>>>> > +1 919 869 8849 >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >> >>>>> Ctk-developers mailing list >> >>>>> Ctk-developers at commontk.org >> >>>>> http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> -- >> >>>> +1 919 869 8849 >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> -- >> >>> +1 919 869 8849 >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> +1 919 869 8849 >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> Ctk-developers mailing list >> >> Ctk-developers at commontk.org >> >> http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Mathieu >> > > > > > -- > +1 919 869 8849 > > From domibel at debian.org Sun Jul 17 17:26:09 2011 From: domibel at debian.org (Dominique Belhachemi) Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 13:26:09 -0400 Subject: [Ctk-developers] CTK uploaded to Debian Experimental Message-ID: Hi, I uploaded a ctk package to Debian Experimental. I will keep it there for a while until it becomes ready for Debian Sid. Build logs can be found here: https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=ctk&suite=experimental and later here as well: https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=ctk&suite=sid A nice package overview can be found here: http://packages.qa.debian.org/c/ctk.html The ctk package has been built with superbuild=off and without all the different plugins. I will turn them on step for step starting with -DCTK_LIB_DICOM/Core:BOOL=ON. I did put the package under Debian Science maintenance, so that other Debian team members can work on the package as well. Cheers Dominique From jchris.fillionr at kitware.com Mon Jul 18 13:20:47 2011 From: jchris.fillionr at kitware.com (Jean-Christophe Fillion-Robin) Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 09:20:47 -0400 Subject: [Ctk-developers] CTK uploaded to Debian Experimental In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dominique, You rock ! That's great to see CTK on the debian package auto-building dashboard :) On which version of Qt does it depend ? Jc On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Dominique Belhachemi wrote: > Hi, > > I uploaded a ctk package to Debian Experimental. I will keep it there > for a while until it becomes ready for Debian Sid. > > Build logs can be found here: > https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=ctk&suite=experimental > and later here as well: > https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=ctk&suite=sid > > A nice package overview can be found here: > http://packages.qa.debian.org/c/ctk.html > > The ctk package has been built with superbuild=off and without all the > different plugins. I will turn them on step for step starting with > -DCTK_LIB_DICOM/Core:BOOL=ON. > I did put the package under Debian Science maintenance, so that other > Debian team members can work on the package as well. > > Cheers > Dominique > _______________________________________________ > Ctk-developers mailing list > Ctk-developers at commontk.org > http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers > -- +1 919 869 8849 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From domibel at debian.org Mon Jul 18 15:01:56 2011 From: domibel at debian.org (Dominique Belhachemi) Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 11:01:56 -0400 Subject: [Ctk-developers] CTK uploaded to Debian Experimental In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Jc, The ctk-0.1.0-2 package depends on libqt4-dev . If you need the exact qt version you have to look into the build logs for each platform. You can look for something like libqtXXXX, e.g. on i386 you will see the following: Get: 70 http://ftp.gr.debian.org/debian/ unstable/main libqtcore4 i386 4:4.7.3-5 [2838 kB] That menas ctk is using Qt 4.7.3 right now. I also activated the tests during the build. Some of them are failing on different platforms. It might be worth to look into the reason. Cheers Dominique On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 9:20 AM, Jean-Christophe Fillion-Robin wrote: > Dominique, > > You rock ! > > That's great to see CTK on the debian package auto-building dashboard :) > > On which version of Qt does it depend ? > > Jc > > On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Dominique Belhachemi > wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I uploaded a ctk package to Debian Experimental. I will keep it there >> for a while until it becomes ready for Debian Sid. >> >> Build logs can be found here: >> ? ?https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=ctk&suite=experimental >> and later here as well: >> ? ?https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=ctk&suite=sid >> >> A nice package overview can be found here: >> ? ?http://packages.qa.debian.org/c/ctk.html >> >> The ctk package has been built with superbuild=off and without all the >> different plugins. I will turn them on step for step starting with >> -DCTK_LIB_DICOM/Core:BOOL=ON. >> I did put the package under Debian Science maintenance, so that other >> Debian team members can work on the package as well. >> >> Cheers >> Dominique >> _______________________________________________ >> Ctk-developers mailing list >> Ctk-developers at commontk.org >> http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers > > > > -- > +1 919 869 8849 > > From zxdflyer at 163.com Tue Jul 19 09:34:30 2011 From: zxdflyer at 163.com (zhang xiaodong) Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 17:34:30 +0800 (CST) Subject: [Ctk-developers] error when compile ctk on win7 X64bit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4b07b493.dfcf.13141bf2406.Coremail.zxdflyer@163.com> Hi, Rencently I download one git-version of CTK and compile it on Win7 X64 system. However error occurs when configure it with cmake. The error is as following: CMake Error at CMake/ctkMacroValidateBuildOptions.cmake:137 (MESSAGE): Failed to obtain dependence path of CTKCore. ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? sxstrace.exe ?????? H:/CTK/CTK-bin64 Call Stack (most recent call first): CMakeLists.txt:505 (ctkMacroValidateBuildOptions) I do not know why it happens. QT 64bit has been compiled already. Could anyone help me with that? Any advice would be greatly appreciated.Thanks a lot. Zhang Xiaodong -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Gerald.Lodron at joanneum.at Wed Jul 20 08:17:13 2011 From: Gerald.Lodron at joanneum.at (Lodron, Gerald) Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 10:17:13 +0200 Subject: [Ctk-developers] building ctk Message-ID: Hi I am new to CTK and try to build it for first time but i get following CMake error: CMake Error at CMake/ctkMacroValidateBuildOptions.cmake:177 (MESSAGE): org_commontk_slicermodule depends on CTKModuleDescription, which does not exist Call Stack (most recent call first): CMakeLists.txt:501 (ctkMacroValidateBuildOptions) I cant find the option CTKModuleDescription in CMake GUI, any suggestions? Gerald Lodron Human-Centered Image Processing Machine Vision Applications DIGITAL - Institute of Information and Communication Technologies JOANNEUM RESEARCH Forschungsgesellschaft mbH Steyrergasse 17, 8010 Graz, AUSTRIA phone: +43-316-876-1751 fax: +43-316-876-1751 web: http://www.joanneum.at/digital e-mail: gerald.lodron at joanneum.at -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Gerald.Lodron at joanneum.at Wed Jul 20 08:18:17 2011 From: Gerald.Lodron at joanneum.at (Lodron, Gerald) Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 10:18:17 +0200 Subject: [Ctk-developers] WG: building ctk Message-ID: Hi I am new to CTK and try to build it for first time but i get following CMake error: CMake Error at CMake/ctkMacroValidateBuildOptions.cmake:177 (MESSAGE): org_commontk_slicermodule depends on CTKModuleDescription, which does not exist Call Stack (most recent call first): CMakeLists.txt:501 (ctkMacroValidateBuildOptions) I cant find the option CTKModuleDescription in CMake GUI, any suggestions? Gerald Lodron Human-Centered Image Processing Machine Vision Applications DIGITAL - Institute of Information and Communication Technologies JOANNEUM RESEARCH Forschungsgesellschaft mbH Steyrergasse 17, 8010 Graz, AUSTRIA phone: +43-316-876-1751 fax: +43-316-876-1751 web: http://www.joanneum.at/digital e-mail: gerald.lodron at joanneum.at -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From julien.finet at kitware.com Wed Jul 20 10:53:47 2011 From: julien.finet at kitware.com (Julien Finet) Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 06:53:47 -0400 Subject: [Ctk-developers] WG: building ctk In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Gerald, The Slicer module is not working at this time. We should not even offer the user to build it. Can you try turning off CTK_PLUGIN_org.commontk.slicermodule ? It should have been off by default, right ? Are you particularly interested in that feature ? In what way ? Thanks, Julien. On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 4:18 AM, Lodron, Gerald wrote: > ** > > > Hi > > I am new to CTK and try to build it for first time but i get following > CMake error: > > CMake Error at CMake/ctkMacroValidateBuildOptions.cmake:177 (MESSAGE): > > org_commontk_slicermodule depends on CTKModuleDescription, which does not > > exist > > Call Stack (most recent call first): > > CMakeLists.txt:501 (ctkMacroValidateBuildOptions) > > > > I cant find the option CTKModuleDescription in CMake GUI, any suggestions? > > > > *Gerald Lodron* > > Human-Centered Image Processing > > Machine Vision Applications > > DIGITAL ? Institute of Information and Communication Technologies**** > > **** > > JOANNEUM RESEARCH Forschungsgesellschaft mbH > Steyrergasse 17, 8010 Graz, AUSTRIA > > phone: +43-316-876-1751 fax: +43-316-876-1751 > > web: http://www.joanneum.at/digital > e-mail: gerald.lodron at joanneum.at**** > > > _______________________________________________ > Ctk-developers mailing list > Ctk-developers at commontk.org > http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jchris.fillionr at kitware.com Wed Jul 20 11:39:35 2011 From: jchris.fillionr at kitware.com (Jean-Christophe Fillion-Robin) Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 07:39:35 -0400 Subject: [Ctk-developers] error when compile ctk on win7 X64bit In-Reply-To: <4b07b493.dfcf.13141bf2406.Coremail.zxdflyer@163.com> References: <4b07b493.dfcf.13141bf2406.Coremail.zxdflyer@163.com> Message-ID: Hi Zhang, Thanks for your report. In order to understand better the issue. Could you translate the error message ? If the problem is related to internationalization and support of unicode characters, could you also try the following: 1) What is your current code page ? open terminal (cmd.exe) -> then type "chcp" in order to get the current code page. See http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1259084/what-encoding-code-page-is-cmd-exe-using See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_code_page 2) Change system langage to english. See http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows-vista/Change-the-system-locale After doing so, I would expect "chcp" to return 437. If it works by changing the locals to be "english", we will know for sure it's a problem related to unicode. Then, we will have to narrow it down and fix the problem. You help would be appreciate in order to improve the internationalization support of CTK. Thanks Jc On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 5:34 AM, zhang xiaodong wrote: > Hi, > > Rencently I download one git-version of CTK and compile it on Win7 X64 > system. However error occurs when configure it with cmake. The error is as > following: > > CMake Error at CMake/ctkMacroValidateBuildOptions.cmake:137 (MESSAGE): > > Failed to obtain dependence path of CTKCore. > > > ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? > > sxstrace.exe ?????? > > H:/CTK/CTK-bin64 > > Call Stack (most recent call first): > > CMakeLists.txt:505 (ctkMacroValidateBuildOptions) > > > > I do not know why it happens. QT 64bit has been compiled already. Could > anyone help me with that? Any advice would be greatly appreciated.Thanks a > lot. > > > > > > Zhang Xiaodong > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ctk-developers mailing list > Ctk-developers at commontk.org > http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers > > -- +1 919 869 8849 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Gerald.Lodron at joanneum.at Wed Jul 20 12:05:30 2011 From: Gerald.Lodron at joanneum.at (Lodron, Gerald) Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 14:05:30 +0200 Subject: [Ctk-developers] building ctk Message-ID: Hi i get following error from cmake: Generated: D:/develop/win64-msv90-build/CTK/DGraphInput-alldep.txt Generated: D:/develop/win64-msv90-build/CTK/DGraphInput-alldep-withext.txt Generated: D:/develop/win64-msv90-build/CTK/DGraphInput.txt Generated: D:/develop/win64-msv90-build/CTK/Project.xml CMake Error at Libs/Core/CMakeLists.txt:6 (INCLUDE): include called with wrong number of arguments. Include only takes one file. i looked at the cmake, it is at INCLUDE(${Log4Qt_USE_FILE}) any suggestions? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jchris.fillionr at kitware.com Wed Jul 20 13:12:42 2011 From: jchris.fillionr at kitware.com (Jean-Christophe Fillion-Robin) Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 09:12:42 -0400 Subject: [Ctk-developers] building ctk In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Gerald, Is it the first error you observe after doing a clean build ? What's the content of /LogQt-build ? Are There a Log4QtConfig.cmake and UseLog4Qt.cmake files ? Thanks Jc On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 8:05 AM, Lodron, Gerald wrote: > ** > Hi > i get following error from cmake: > > Generated: D:/develop/win64-msv90-build/CTK/DGraphInput-alldep.txt > > Generated: D:/develop/win64-msv90-build/CTK/DGraphInput-alldep-withext.txt > > Generated: D:/develop/win64-msv90-build/CTK/DGraphInput.txt > > Generated: D:/develop/win64-msv90-build/CTK/Project.xml > > CMake Error at Libs/Core/CMakeLists.txt:6 (INCLUDE): > > include called with wrong number of arguments. Include only takes one > > file. > > > > i looked at the cmake, it is at > > INCLUDE(${Log4Qt_USE_FILE}) > any suggestions? > > _______________________________________________ > Ctk-developers mailing list > Ctk-developers at commontk.org > http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers > > -- +1 919 869 8849 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Gerald.Lodron at joanneum.at Wed Jul 20 14:29:56 2011 From: Gerald.Lodron at joanneum.at (Lodron, Gerald) Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 16:29:56 +0200 Subject: [Ctk-developers] building ctk In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi I have no experiences using superbuild, i already build ITK, VTK and QT on my own so i turned superbuild off and want to specify the pathes to them manually, is this a problem? Or do i misinterpret superbuild (it automatically downloads ITK etc, or?)? ________________________________ Von: Jean-Christophe Fillion-Robin [mailto:jchris.fillionr at kitware.com] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 20. Juli 2011 15:13 An: Lodron, Gerald Cc: CTK (ctk-developers at commontk.org) Betreff: Re: [Ctk-developers] building ctk Hi Gerald, Is it the first error you observe after doing a clean build ? What's the content of /LogQt-build ? Are There a Log4QtConfig.cmake and UseLog4Qt.cmake files ? Thanks Jc On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 8:05 AM, Lodron, Gerald > wrote: Hi i get following error from cmake: Generated: D:/develop/win64-msv90-build/CTK/DGraphInput-alldep.txt Generated: D:/develop/win64-msv90-build/CTK/DGraphInput-alldep-withext.txt Generated: D:/develop/win64-msv90-build/CTK/DGraphInput.txt Generated: D:/develop/win64-msv90-build/CTK/Project.xml CMake Error at Libs/Core/CMakeLists.txt:6 (INCLUDE): include called with wrong number of arguments. Include only takes one file. i looked at the cmake, it is at INCLUDE(${Log4Qt_USE_FILE}) any suggestions? _______________________________________________ Ctk-developers mailing list Ctk-developers at commontk.org http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers -- +1 919 869 8849 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jchris.fillionr at kitware.com Wed Jul 20 14:47:06 2011 From: jchris.fillionr at kitware.com (Jean-Christophe Fillion-Robin) Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 10:47:06 -0400 Subject: [Ctk-developers] building ctk In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Gerald, Using superbuild is a straightforward process. git clone git://github.com/commontk/CTK.git mkdir CTK-Superbuild cd CTK-Superbuild cmake -DQT_QMAKE_EXECUTABLE:FILEPATH=/path/to/qmake ../CTK make -j4 Doing so, ITK, VTK .. etc will be downloaded and configured for you. If you don't want to use Superbuild, you will have to build and configure the expected dependencies yourself. I would recommend to use Superbuild. After the configure/build is done at the superbuild level, you will end up with the following layout: |-- CTK-build |-- VTK-build ... The content of "CTK-build" corresponds to a build of CTK with CTK_SUPERBUILD:OFF Does this clarify things? Thanks Jc On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 10:29 AM, Lodron, Gerald wrote: > ** > Hi > > I have no experiences using superbuild, i already build ITK, VTK and QT on > my own so i turned superbuild off and want to specify the pathes to them > manually, is this a problem? Or do i misinterpret superbuild (it > automatically downloads ITK etc, or?)? > ------------------------------ > *Von:* Jean-Christophe Fillion-Robin [mailto:jchris.fillionr at kitware.com] > > *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 20. Juli 2011 15:13 > *An:* Lodron, Gerald > *Cc:* CTK (ctk-developers at commontk.org) > *Betreff:* Re: [Ctk-developers] building ctk > > Hi Gerald, > > Is it the first error you observe after doing a clean build ? > > What's the content of /LogQt-build ? Are There a > Log4QtConfig.cmake and UseLog4Qt.cmake files ? > > Thanks > Jc > > On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 8:05 AM, Lodron, Gerald > wrote: > >> ** >> Hi >> i get following error from cmake: >> >> Generated: D:/develop/win64-msv90-build/CTK/DGraphInput-alldep.txt >> >> Generated: D:/develop/win64-msv90-build/CTK/DGraphInput-alldep-withext.txt >> >> Generated: D:/develop/win64-msv90-build/CTK/DGraphInput.txt >> >> Generated: D:/develop/win64-msv90-build/CTK/Project.xml >> >> CMake Error at Libs/Core/CMakeLists.txt:6 (INCLUDE): >> >> include called with wrong number of arguments. Include only takes one >> >> file. >> >> >> >> i looked at the cmake, it is at >> >> INCLUDE(${Log4Qt_USE_FILE}) >> any suggestions? >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Ctk-developers mailing list >> Ctk-developers at commontk.org >> http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers >> >> > > > -- > +1 919 869 8849 > > -- +1 919 869 8849 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From haehn at bwh.harvard.edu Thu Jul 21 20:12:44 2011 From: haehn at bwh.harvard.edu (Daniel Haehn) Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 16:12:44 -0400 Subject: [Ctk-developers] ctkWorkflow validate does not get called when going back Message-ID: Hi guys, I am working on a wizard using a ctkWorkflow and the corresponding widget in Python. It seems that the validate() function of a step is only executed when going forward in the workflow. E.g. when I go back from step2 to step1, the validation code is skipped. Is this correct or am I doing something wrong? I think it would make sense to validate anytime one exists the step. Cheers, Daniel From stephen.aylward at kitware.com Thu Jul 21 20:16:54 2011 From: stephen.aylward at kitware.com (Stephen Aylward) Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 16:16:54 -0400 Subject: [Ctk-developers] ctkWorkflow validate does not get called when going back In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Validating when going backwards seems odd to me. It might result in getting stuck in a state from which you cannot exit because of something done in a previous state which you cannot fix since you cannot go back to the previous state. Maybe there should be a "StepBack" function that is called - and in your case it could call "validate"? s On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Daniel Haehn wrote: > Hi guys, > > I am working on a wizard using a ctkWorkflow and the corresponding > widget in Python. > > It seems that the validate() function of a step is only executed when > going forward in the workflow. E.g. when I go back from step2 to > step1, the validation code is skipped. > > Is this correct or am I doing something wrong? I think it would make > sense to validate anytime one exists the step. > > Cheers, > Daniel > _______________________________________________ > Ctk-developers mailing list > Ctk-developers at commontk.org > http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers > -- ============================== Stephen R. Aylward, Ph.D. Director of Medical Imaging Research Kitware, Inc. - North Carolina Office http://www.kitware.com stephen.aylward (Skype) (919) 969-6990 x300 From haehn at bwh.harvard.edu Thu Jul 21 20:23:07 2011 From: haehn at bwh.harvard.edu (Daniel Haehn) Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 16:23:07 -0400 Subject: [Ctk-developers] ctkWorkflow validate does not get called when going back In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Stephen, I think the validate() method should only validate the current step. Then you would be stuck at a step before you fix the input before you can go back or forward. This would make sense to me. Daniel On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 4:16 PM, Stephen Aylward wrote: > Validating when going backwards seems odd to me. ? It might result in > getting stuck in a state from which you cannot exit because of > something done in a previous state which you cannot fix since you > cannot go back to the previous state. > > Maybe there should be a "StepBack" function that is called - and in > your case it could call "validate"? > > s > > On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Daniel Haehn wrote: >> Hi guys, >> >> I am working on a wizard using a ctkWorkflow and the corresponding >> widget in Python. >> >> It seems that the validate() function of a step is only executed when >> going forward in the workflow. E.g. when I go back from step2 to >> step1, the validation code is skipped. >> >> Is this correct or am I doing something wrong? I think it would make >> sense to validate anytime one exists the step. >> >> Cheers, >> Daniel >> _______________________________________________ >> Ctk-developers mailing list >> Ctk-developers at commontk.org >> http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers >> > > > > -- > > ============================== > Stephen R. Aylward, Ph.D. > Director of Medical Imaging Research > Kitware, Inc. - North Carolina Office > http://www.kitware.com > stephen.aylward (Skype) > (919) 969-6990 x300 > From stephen.aylward at kitware.com Thu Jul 21 20:34:58 2011 From: stephen.aylward at kitware.com (Stephen Aylward) Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 16:34:58 -0400 Subject: [Ctk-developers] ctkWorkflow validate does not get called when going back In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, Ok - I might not be following this - let me check on the call sequence.... s On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 4:23 PM, Daniel Haehn wrote: > Hi Stephen, > > I think the validate() method should only validate the current step. > Then you would be stuck at a step before you fix the input before you > can go back or forward. This would make sense to me. > > Daniel > > On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 4:16 PM, Stephen Aylward > wrote: >> Validating when going backwards seems odd to me. ? It might result in >> getting stuck in a state from which you cannot exit because of >> something done in a previous state which you cannot fix since you >> cannot go back to the previous state. >> >> Maybe there should be a "StepBack" function that is called - and in >> your case it could call "validate"? >> >> s >> >> On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Daniel Haehn wrote: >>> Hi guys, >>> >>> I am working on a wizard using a ctkWorkflow and the corresponding >>> widget in Python. >>> >>> It seems that the validate() function of a step is only executed when >>> going forward in the workflow. E.g. when I go back from step2 to >>> step1, the validation code is skipped. >>> >>> Is this correct or am I doing something wrong? I think it would make >>> sense to validate anytime one exists the step. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Daniel >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Ctk-developers mailing list >>> Ctk-developers at commontk.org >>> http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> ============================== >> Stephen R. Aylward, Ph.D. >> Director of Medical Imaging Research >> Kitware, Inc. - North Carolina Office >> http://www.kitware.com >> stephen.aylward (Skype) >> (919) 969-6990 x300 >> > -- ============================== Stephen R. Aylward, Ph.D. Director of Medical Imaging Research Kitware, Inc. - North Carolina Office http://www.kitware.com stephen.aylward (Skype) (919) 969-6990 x300 From haehn at bwh.harvard.edu Thu Jul 21 20:44:05 2011 From: haehn at bwh.harvard.edu (Daniel Haehn) Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 16:44:05 -0400 Subject: [Ctk-developers] ctkWorkflow validate does not get called when going back In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Stephen, sorry for the confusion :) The validate() method considers only the current step. Going backwards or forwards should only be possible if validation succeeds. If validation fails the input can be fixed in the current step. This means you can never get stuck. For now, I will call validate() on the onExit() method. This will work temporary for me. Thx, Daniel On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 4:34 PM, Stephen Aylward wrote: > Hi, > > Ok - I might not be following this - let me check on the call sequence.... > > s > > On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 4:23 PM, Daniel Haehn wrote: >> Hi Stephen, >> >> I think the validate() method should only validate the current step. >> Then you would be stuck at a step before you fix the input before you >> can go back or forward. This would make sense to me. >> >> Daniel >> >> On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 4:16 PM, Stephen Aylward >> wrote: >>> Validating when going backwards seems odd to me. ? It might result in >>> getting stuck in a state from which you cannot exit because of >>> something done in a previous state which you cannot fix since you >>> cannot go back to the previous state. >>> >>> Maybe there should be a "StepBack" function that is called - and in >>> your case it could call "validate"? >>> >>> s >>> >>> On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Daniel Haehn wrote: >>>> Hi guys, >>>> >>>> I am working on a wizard using a ctkWorkflow and the corresponding >>>> widget in Python. >>>> >>>> It seems that the validate() function of a step is only executed when >>>> going forward in the workflow. E.g. when I go back from step2 to >>>> step1, the validation code is skipped. >>>> >>>> Is this correct or am I doing something wrong? I think it would make >>>> sense to validate anytime one exists the step. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Daniel >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Ctk-developers mailing list >>>> Ctk-developers at commontk.org >>>> http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> ============================== >>> Stephen R. Aylward, Ph.D. >>> Director of Medical Imaging Research >>> Kitware, Inc. - North Carolina Office >>> http://www.kitware.com >>> stephen.aylward (Skype) >>> (919) 969-6990 x300 >>> >> > > > > -- > > ============================== > Stephen R. Aylward, Ph.D. > Director of Medical Imaging Research > Kitware, Inc. - North Carolina Office > http://www.kitware.com > stephen.aylward (Skype) > (919) 969-6990 x300 > From s.zelzer at dkfz-heidelberg.de Fri Jul 22 11:39:48 2011 From: s.zelzer at dkfz-heidelberg.de (Sascha Zelzer) Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 13:39:48 +0200 Subject: [Ctk-developers] VS2010 support Message-ID: <4E296184.20903@dkfz-heidelberg.de> Hi Folks, I would like to get Visual Studio 2010 compatibility for CTK. Currently, it looks like I will have to copy ExternalProject.cmake to CTK for the CMAKE_CACHE_ARGS argument. Then a couple of small modifications should do. Any other ideas or objections? Thanks, Sascha From danielle.pace at kitware.com Fri Jul 22 15:30:44 2011 From: danielle.pace at kitware.com (Danielle Pace) Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 11:30:44 -0400 Subject: [Ctk-developers] ctkWorkflow validate does not get called when going back In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Daniel, Validation is not supposed to occur when going backwards. One would go backwards typically to correct a mistake made, or to tune parameters at a previous step to make the current step run better. The user would often be midway through a step before deciding to go backwards - you wouldn't want to make them "pass" that step before you can go back. Imagine this example workflow: 1) Image sharpening - tune parameters and perform edge enhancement - validation is that parameters are ok 2) Segmentation - tune segmentation parameters and perform segmentation - validation is that an output label map exists and has some specific properties 3) Do something with the label map. If you are on step 2, and tried some segmentations that didn't produce valid label maps, you might decide to go back to step 1 and do some more sharpening. You wouldn't want to have to validate step 2 before going back to step 1. So - if you have a specific usecase where it makes sense to validate when going backwards, you would have to modify your onExit() for that step - and make sure that the validation passed before going backwards. It'll likely require a bit of work. I'd make sure that it truly makes sense to validate going backwards in your workflow. Hope that helps - please let me know if anything is still unclear. Thanks, Danielle On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 4:44 PM, Daniel Haehn wrote: > Hi Stephen, > > sorry for the confusion :) > > The validate() method considers only the current step. Going backwards > or forwards should only be possible if validation succeeds. If > validation fails the input can be fixed in the current step. This > means you can never get stuck. > > For now, I will call validate() on the onExit() method. This will work > temporary for me. > > Thx, > Daniel > > On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 4:34 PM, Stephen Aylward > wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Ok - I might not be following this - let me check on the call > sequence.... > > > > s > > > > On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 4:23 PM, Daniel Haehn > wrote: > >> Hi Stephen, > >> > >> I think the validate() method should only validate the current step. > >> Then you would be stuck at a step before you fix the input before you > >> can go back or forward. This would make sense to me. > >> > >> Daniel > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 4:16 PM, Stephen Aylward > >> wrote: > >>> Validating when going backwards seems odd to me. It might result in > >>> getting stuck in a state from which you cannot exit because of > >>> something done in a previous state which you cannot fix since you > >>> cannot go back to the previous state. > >>> > >>> Maybe there should be a "StepBack" function that is called - and in > >>> your case it could call "validate"? > >>> > >>> s > >>> > >>> On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Daniel Haehn > wrote: > >>>> Hi guys, > >>>> > >>>> I am working on a wizard using a ctkWorkflow and the corresponding > >>>> widget in Python. > >>>> > >>>> It seems that the validate() function of a step is only executed when > >>>> going forward in the workflow. E.g. when I go back from step2 to > >>>> step1, the validation code is skipped. > >>>> > >>>> Is this correct or am I doing something wrong? I think it would make > >>>> sense to validate anytime one exists the step. > >>>> > >>>> Cheers, > >>>> Daniel > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> Ctk-developers mailing list > >>>> Ctk-developers at commontk.org > >>>> http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> > >>> ============================== > >>> Stephen R. Aylward, Ph.D. > >>> Director of Medical Imaging Research > >>> Kitware, Inc. - North Carolina Office > >>> http://www.kitware.com > >>> stephen.aylward (Skype) > >>> (919) 969-6990 x300 > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > > > ============================== > > Stephen R. Aylward, Ph.D. > > Director of Medical Imaging Research > > Kitware, Inc. - North Carolina Office > > http://www.kitware.com > > stephen.aylward (Skype) > > (919) 969-6990 x300 > > > _______________________________________________ > Ctk-developers mailing list > Ctk-developers at commontk.org > http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers > -- Danielle Pace, M.ESc. Research and Development Engineer Kitware Inc., North Carolina Office www.kitware.com 919-969-6990 X 319 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From julien.finet at kitware.com Fri Jul 22 15:59:20 2011 From: julien.finet at kitware.com (Julien Finet) Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 11:59:20 -0400 Subject: [Ctk-developers] ctkWorkflow validate does not get called when going back In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Daniel, If I understood your workflow correctly, you are in a case where: - you have 3 steps: A, B and C. - Initiale step is A, - To go from A to B, you need to validate A - to go from B to C you need to validate B - to go from B to A you need to validate B. I can see the last case possible (it's probably unintuitive to the user as it is different from typical workflows), a usecase description would help. You are asking for a branchy workflow instead of a linear workflow. You need to create a connection "from B to A" in addition to "from A to B". So that B step has 1 income(:A) and 2 outcomes (: C and A). When you are in step B, you would need to validate to be able to go to A or C. Then the question is: would adding a step be feasible with the current implementation of ctkWorkflow ? What would be the changes to bring? Before going any further, it is probably worthwhile to ensure that validating B to go from B to A makes sense. Julien. On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 11:30 AM, Danielle Pace wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > Validation is not supposed to occur when going backwards. > > One would go backwards typically to correct a mistake made, or to tune > parameters at a previous step to make the current step run better. The user > would often be midway through a step before deciding to go backwards - you > wouldn't want to make them "pass" that step before you can go back. > > Imagine this example workflow: > 1) Image sharpening - tune parameters and perform edge enhancement - > validation is that parameters are ok > 2) Segmentation - tune segmentation parameters and perform segmentation - > validation is that an output label map exists and has some specific > properties > 3) Do something with the label map. > > If you are on step 2, and tried some segmentations that didn't produce > valid label maps, you might decide to go back to step 1 and do some more > sharpening. You wouldn't want to have to validate step 2 before going back > to step 1. > > So - if you have a specific usecase where it makes sense to validate when > going backwards, you would have to modify your onExit() for that step - and > make sure that the validation passed before going backwards. It'll likely > require a bit of work. I'd make sure that it truly makes sense to validate > going backwards in your workflow. > > Hope that helps - please let me know if anything is still unclear. > > Thanks, > > Danielle > > > > > On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 4:44 PM, Daniel Haehn wrote: > >> Hi Stephen, >> >> sorry for the confusion :) >> >> The validate() method considers only the current step. Going backwards >> or forwards should only be possible if validation succeeds. If >> validation fails the input can be fixed in the current step. This >> means you can never get stuck. >> >> For now, I will call validate() on the onExit() method. This will work >> temporary for me. >> >> Thx, >> Daniel >> >> On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 4:34 PM, Stephen Aylward >> wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > Ok - I might not be following this - let me check on the call >> sequence.... >> > >> > s >> > >> > On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 4:23 PM, Daniel Haehn >> wrote: >> >> Hi Stephen, >> >> >> >> I think the validate() method should only validate the current step. >> >> Then you would be stuck at a step before you fix the input before you >> >> can go back or forward. This would make sense to me. >> >> >> >> Daniel >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 4:16 PM, Stephen Aylward >> >> wrote: >> >>> Validating when going backwards seems odd to me. It might result in >> >>> getting stuck in a state from which you cannot exit because of >> >>> something done in a previous state which you cannot fix since you >> >>> cannot go back to the previous state. >> >>> >> >>> Maybe there should be a "StepBack" function that is called - and in >> >>> your case it could call "validate"? >> >>> >> >>> s >> >>> >> >>> On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Daniel Haehn >> wrote: >> >>>> Hi guys, >> >>>> >> >>>> I am working on a wizard using a ctkWorkflow and the corresponding >> >>>> widget in Python. >> >>>> >> >>>> It seems that the validate() function of a step is only executed when >> >>>> going forward in the workflow. E.g. when I go back from step2 to >> >>>> step1, the validation code is skipped. >> >>>> >> >>>> Is this correct or am I doing something wrong? I think it would make >> >>>> sense to validate anytime one exists the step. >> >>>> >> >>>> Cheers, >> >>>> Daniel >> >>>> _______________________________________________ >> >>>> Ctk-developers mailing list >> >>>> Ctk-developers at commontk.org >> >>>> http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> -- >> >>> >> >>> ============================== >> >>> Stephen R. Aylward, Ph.D. >> >>> Director of Medical Imaging Research >> >>> Kitware, Inc. - North Carolina Office >> >>> http://www.kitware.com >> >>> stephen.aylward (Skype) >> >>> (919) 969-6990 x300 >> >>> >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > >> > ============================== >> > Stephen R. Aylward, Ph.D. >> > Director of Medical Imaging Research >> > Kitware, Inc. - North Carolina Office >> > http://www.kitware.com >> > stephen.aylward (Skype) >> > (919) 969-6990 x300 >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> Ctk-developers mailing list >> Ctk-developers at commontk.org >> http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers >> > > > > -- > Danielle Pace, M.ESc. > Research and Development Engineer > > Kitware Inc., > North Carolina Office > > www.kitware.com > 919-969-6990 X 319 > > > _______________________________________________ > Ctk-developers mailing list > Ctk-developers at commontk.org > http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From s.zelzer at dkfz-heidelberg.de Fri Jul 22 16:07:28 2011 From: s.zelzer at dkfz-heidelberg.de (Sascha Zelzer) Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 18:07:28 +0200 Subject: [Ctk-developers] VS2010 support In-Reply-To: <4E296184.20903@dkfz-heidelberg.de> References: <4E296184.20903@dkfz-heidelberg.de> Message-ID: <4E29A040.3080405@dkfz-heidelberg.de> Hi, there is something very strange going on. The generated VS 2010 projects (I am using the Express editions, 32bit) for the external dependencies like DCMTK, Log4Qt, etc. only call the download step of the ExternalProject_add call in our superbuild scripts. The projects are not configured and build. Did anybody experience the same? I tried with and without the VS 2010 SP1 and with CMake 2.8.4 and 2.8.5. Thanks, Sascha On 07/22/2011 01:39 PM, Sascha Zelzer wrote: > Hi Folks, > > I would like to get Visual Studio 2010 compatibility for CTK. > > Currently, it looks like I will have to copy ExternalProject.cmake to > CTK for the CMAKE_CACHE_ARGS argument. Then a couple of small > modifications should do. > > Any other ideas or objections? > > Thanks, > > Sascha > _______________________________________________ > Ctk-developers mailing list > Ctk-developers at commontk.org > http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers From domibel at debian.org Sat Jul 23 20:58:01 2011 From: domibel at debian.org (Dominique Belhachemi) Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2011 16:58:01 -0400 Subject: [Ctk-developers] experiments with the official dcmtk 3.6.0 Message-ID: Hi, I was trying to use CTK together with DCMTK 3.6.0. But I am running into some issues here. It seems that dcmtk/dcmdata/dcdeftag.h has changed a lot. [ 94%] Building CXX object Libs/DICOM/Core/CMakeFiles/CTKDICOMCore.dir/ctkDICOMIndexer.cpp.o /tmp/buildd/ctk-0.1.0/Libs/DICOM/Core/ctkDICOMIndexer.cpp: In member function 'void ctkDICOMIndexer::addDirectory(ctkDICOMDatabase&, const QString&, const QString&, bool, bool)': /tmp/buildd/ctk-0.1.0/Libs/DICOM/Core/ctkDICOMIndexer.cpp:181:38: error: 'DCM_PatientsName' was not declared in this scope /tmp/buildd/ctk-0.1.0/Libs/DICOM/Core/ctkDICOMIndexer.cpp:213:33: error: 'DCM_PatientsBirthDate' was not declared in this scope /tmp/buildd/ctk-0.1.0/Libs/DICOM/Core/ctkDICOMIndexer.cpp:214:33: error: 'DCM_PatientsBirthTime' was not declared in this scope /tmp/buildd/ctk-0.1.0/Libs/DICOM/Core/ctkDICOMIndexer.cpp:215:33: error: 'DCM_PatientsSex' was not declared in this scope /tmp/buildd/ctk-0.1.0/Libs/DICOM/Core/ctkDICOMIndexer.cpp:216:33: error: 'DCM_PatientsAge' was not declared in this scope /tmp/buildd/ctk-0.1.0/Libs/DICOM/Core/ctkDICOMIndexer.cpp:224:33: error: 'DCM_PerformingPhysiciansName' was not declared in this scope /tmp/buildd/ctk-0.1.0/Libs/DICOM/Core/ctkDICOMIndexer.cpp:225:33: error: 'DCM_ReferringPhysiciansName' was not declared in this scope There are also things like that: /tmp/buildd/ctk-0.1.0/Libs/DICOM/Core/ctkDICOMQuery.cpp:407:54: error: no matching function for call to 'DcmSCU::closeAssociation(const OFCondition&)' Are there any plans to use an official version of DCMTK 3.6.0 in the future? Thanks Dominique From pieper at ibility.net Sat Jul 23 21:03:37 2011 From: pieper at ibility.net (Steve Pieper) Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2011 17:03:37 -0400 Subject: [Ctk-developers] experiments with the official dcmtk 3.6.0 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Dominique - yes, the plan is to move to 3.6 - see this email exchange from June: http://public.kitware.com/pipermail/ctk-developers/2011-June/000640.html [[ Reminder to Michael: do you have that patch now?? :) ]] -Steve On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 4:58 PM, Dominique Belhachemi wrote: > Hi, > > I was trying to use CTK together with DCMTK 3.6.0. But I am running > into some issues here. It seems that dcmtk/dcmdata/dcdeftag.h has > changed a lot. > > [ 94%] Building CXX object > Libs/DICOM/Core/CMakeFiles/CTKDICOMCore.dir/ctkDICOMIndexer.cpp.o > /tmp/buildd/ctk-0.1.0/Libs/DICOM/Core/ctkDICOMIndexer.cpp: In member > function 'void ctkDICOMIndexer::addDirectory(ctkDICOMDatabase&, const > QString&, const QString&, bool, bool)': > /tmp/buildd/ctk-0.1.0/Libs/DICOM/Core/ctkDICOMIndexer.cpp:181:38: > error: 'DCM_PatientsName' was not declared in this scope > /tmp/buildd/ctk-0.1.0/Libs/DICOM/Core/ctkDICOMIndexer.cpp:213:33: > error: 'DCM_PatientsBirthDate' was not declared in this scope > /tmp/buildd/ctk-0.1.0/Libs/DICOM/Core/ctkDICOMIndexer.cpp:214:33: > error: 'DCM_PatientsBirthTime' was not declared in this scope > /tmp/buildd/ctk-0.1.0/Libs/DICOM/Core/ctkDICOMIndexer.cpp:215:33: > error: 'DCM_PatientsSex' was not declared in this scope > /tmp/buildd/ctk-0.1.0/Libs/DICOM/Core/ctkDICOMIndexer.cpp:216:33: > error: 'DCM_PatientsAge' was not declared in this scope > /tmp/buildd/ctk-0.1.0/Libs/DICOM/Core/ctkDICOMIndexer.cpp:224:33: > error: 'DCM_PerformingPhysiciansName' was not declared in this scope > /tmp/buildd/ctk-0.1.0/Libs/DICOM/Core/ctkDICOMIndexer.cpp:225:33: > error: 'DCM_ReferringPhysiciansName' was not declared in this scope > > There are also things like that: > /tmp/buildd/ctk-0.1.0/Libs/DICOM/Core/ctkDICOMQuery.cpp:407:54: error: > no matching function for call to 'DcmSCU::closeAssociation(const > OFCondition&)' > > Are there any plans to use an official version of DCMTK 3.6.0 in the > future? > > Thanks > Dominique > _______________________________________________ > Ctk-developers mailing list > Ctk-developers at commontk.org > http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From domibel at debian.org Sat Jul 23 21:14:52 2011 From: domibel at debian.org (Dominique Belhachemi) Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2011 17:14:52 -0400 Subject: [Ctk-developers] experiments with the official dcmtk 3.6.0 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Steve, that sounds good. Dominique On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 5:03 PM, Steve Pieper wrote: > Hi Dominique - yes, the plan is to move to 3.6 - see this email exchange > from June: > > http://public.kitware.com/pipermail/ctk-developers/2011-June/000640.html > > [[ Reminder to Michael: do you have that patch now??? :) ]] > > -Steve > > > On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 4:58 PM, Dominique Belhachemi > wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I was trying to use CTK together with DCMTK 3.6.0. But I am running >> into some issues here. It seems that dcmtk/dcmdata/dcdeftag.h has >> changed a lot. >> >> [ 94%] Building CXX object >> Libs/DICOM/Core/CMakeFiles/CTKDICOMCore.dir/ctkDICOMIndexer.cpp.o >> /tmp/buildd/ctk-0.1.0/Libs/DICOM/Core/ctkDICOMIndexer.cpp: In member >> function 'void ctkDICOMIndexer::addDirectory(ctkDICOMDatabase&, const >> QString&, const QString&, bool, bool)': >> /tmp/buildd/ctk-0.1.0/Libs/DICOM/Core/ctkDICOMIndexer.cpp:181:38: >> error: 'DCM_PatientsName' was not declared in this scope >> /tmp/buildd/ctk-0.1.0/Libs/DICOM/Core/ctkDICOMIndexer.cpp:213:33: >> error: 'DCM_PatientsBirthDate' was not declared in this scope >> /tmp/buildd/ctk-0.1.0/Libs/DICOM/Core/ctkDICOMIndexer.cpp:214:33: >> error: 'DCM_PatientsBirthTime' was not declared in this scope >> /tmp/buildd/ctk-0.1.0/Libs/DICOM/Core/ctkDICOMIndexer.cpp:215:33: >> error: 'DCM_PatientsSex' was not declared in this scope >> /tmp/buildd/ctk-0.1.0/Libs/DICOM/Core/ctkDICOMIndexer.cpp:216:33: >> error: 'DCM_PatientsAge' was not declared in this scope >> /tmp/buildd/ctk-0.1.0/Libs/DICOM/Core/ctkDICOMIndexer.cpp:224:33: >> error: 'DCM_PerformingPhysiciansName' was not declared in this scope >> /tmp/buildd/ctk-0.1.0/Libs/DICOM/Core/ctkDICOMIndexer.cpp:225:33: >> error: 'DCM_ReferringPhysiciansName' was not declared in this scope >> >> There are also things like that: >> /tmp/buildd/ctk-0.1.0/Libs/DICOM/Core/ctkDICOMQuery.cpp:407:54: error: >> no matching function for call to 'DcmSCU::closeAssociation(const >> OFCondition&)' >> >> Are there any plans to use an official version of DCMTK 3.6.0 in the >> future? >> >> Thanks >> Dominique >> _______________________________________________ >> Ctk-developers mailing list >> Ctk-developers at commontk.org >> http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers > > From mathieu.malaterre at gmail.com Mon Jul 25 07:29:39 2011 From: mathieu.malaterre at gmail.com (Mathieu Malaterre) Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 09:29:39 +0200 Subject: [Ctk-developers] experiments with the official dcmtk 3.6.0 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dominique, I did gave it a try back in March: https://github.com/malaterre/CTK/tree/dcmtk_compilation From the top of my head the transition pre/post 2009 keywords went fine. However I failed to realize the transition for the new API of DcmSCU. HTH On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 10:58 PM, Dominique Belhachemi wrote: > Hi, > > I was trying to use CTK together with DCMTK 3.6.0. But I am running > into some issues here. It seems that dcmtk/dcmdata/dcdeftag.h has > changed a lot. > > [ 94%] Building CXX object > Libs/DICOM/Core/CMakeFiles/CTKDICOMCore.dir/ctkDICOMIndexer.cpp.o > /tmp/buildd/ctk-0.1.0/Libs/DICOM/Core/ctkDICOMIndexer.cpp: In member > function 'void ctkDICOMIndexer::addDirectory(ctkDICOMDatabase&, const > QString&, const QString&, bool, bool)': > /tmp/buildd/ctk-0.1.0/Libs/DICOM/Core/ctkDICOMIndexer.cpp:181:38: > error: 'DCM_PatientsName' was not declared in this scope > /tmp/buildd/ctk-0.1.0/Libs/DICOM/Core/ctkDICOMIndexer.cpp:213:33: > error: 'DCM_PatientsBirthDate' was not declared in this scope > /tmp/buildd/ctk-0.1.0/Libs/DICOM/Core/ctkDICOMIndexer.cpp:214:33: > error: 'DCM_PatientsBirthTime' was not declared in this scope > /tmp/buildd/ctk-0.1.0/Libs/DICOM/Core/ctkDICOMIndexer.cpp:215:33: > error: 'DCM_PatientsSex' was not declared in this scope > /tmp/buildd/ctk-0.1.0/Libs/DICOM/Core/ctkDICOMIndexer.cpp:216:33: > error: 'DCM_PatientsAge' was not declared in this scope > /tmp/buildd/ctk-0.1.0/Libs/DICOM/Core/ctkDICOMIndexer.cpp:224:33: > error: 'DCM_PerformingPhysiciansName' was not declared in this scope > /tmp/buildd/ctk-0.1.0/Libs/DICOM/Core/ctkDICOMIndexer.cpp:225:33: > error: 'DCM_ReferringPhysiciansName' was not declared in this scope > > There are also things like that: > /tmp/buildd/ctk-0.1.0/Libs/DICOM/Core/ctkDICOMQuery.cpp:407:54: error: > no matching function for call to 'DcmSCU::closeAssociation(const > OFCondition&)' > > Are there any plans to use an official version of DCMTK 3.6.0 in the future? > > Thanks > Dominique > _______________________________________________ > Ctk-developers mailing list > Ctk-developers at commontk.org > http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers > -- Mathieu From dicom at offis.de Mon Jul 25 07:41:02 2011 From: dicom at offis.de (OFFIS DICOM Team) Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 09:41:02 +0200 Subject: [Ctk-developers] experiments with the official dcmtk 3.6.0 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4E2D1E0E.1060805@offis.de> Hi, Am 23.07.2011 23:03, schrieb Steve Pieper: > Hi Dominique - yes, the plan is to move to 3.6 - see this email exchange > from June: > > http://public.kitware.com/pipermail/ctk-developers/2011-June/000640.html > > [[ Reminder to Michael: do you have that patch now?? :) ]] Thanks Steve, I know I'm (very) late :-/ I made all the changes and many more on the indexer and database and now I am merging everything back into the main branch (yes, I should commit faster...). I will start commiting the minimum changes very soon and throw away for now most of the stuff I changed in other files. I hope you get it this week. Dominique, most of your errors are just changes in the tag name constants that were introduced in 3.6.0 since DICOM introduced an official naming scheme for attribute names. The rest of changes is actually about the SCU. Michael -- OFFIS DICOM Team, Escherweg 2, 26121 Oldenburg, Germany E-Mail: dicom at offis.de, URL: http://dicom.offis.de From m.nolden at dkfz-heidelberg.de Mon Jul 25 07:49:31 2011 From: m.nolden at dkfz-heidelberg.de (Marco Nolden) Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 09:49:31 +0200 Subject: [Ctk-developers] experiments with the official dcmtk 3.6.0 In-Reply-To: <4E2D1E0E.1060805@offis.de> References: <4E2D1E0E.1060805@offis.de> Message-ID: <4E2D200B.9050108@dkfz-heidelberg.de> On 07/25/2011 09:41 AM, OFFIS DICOM Team wrote: > Hi, > > Am 23.07.2011 23:03, schrieb Steve Pieper: >> Hi Dominique - yes, the plan is to move to 3.6 - see this email exchange >> from June: >> >> http://public.kitware.com/pipermail/ctk-developers/2011-June/000640.html >> >> [[ Reminder to Michael: do you have that patch now?? :) ]] > Thanks Steve, I know I'm (very) late :-/ I made all the changes and many > more on the indexer and database and now I am merging everything back into > the main branch (yes, I should commit faster...). I will start commiting the > minimum changes very soon and throw away for now most of the stuff I changed > in other files. I hope you get it this week. > > Dominique, most of your errors are just changes in the tag name constants > that were introduced in 3.6.0 since DICOM introduced an official naming > scheme for attribute names. The rest of changes is actually about the SCU. > > Michael > Hi Michael, that sounds great. The tag name changes are already in https://github.com/commontk/CTK/commits/dcmtk-3.6 if you want to use that. Otherwise we could just drop that branch. Best, Marco From domibel at debian.org Mon Jul 25 14:31:34 2011 From: domibel at debian.org (Dominique Belhachemi) Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 10:31:34 -0400 Subject: [Ctk-developers] experiments with the official dcmtk 3.6.0 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Mathieu, this looks good. I also noticed your header patches like -#include "dcmimage.h" +#include This could be applied upstream too. Right now they include all kind of dcmtk subdirectories via CMake. Dominique On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 3:29 AM, Mathieu Malaterre wrote: > Dominique, > > ?I did gave it a try back in March: > > https://github.com/malaterre/CTK/tree/dcmtk_compilation > > ?From the top of my head the transition pre/post 2009 keywords went > fine. However I failed to realize the transition for the new API of > DcmSCU. > > HTH > > On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 10:58 PM, Dominique Belhachemi > wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I was trying to use CTK together with DCMTK 3.6.0. But I am running >> into some issues here. It seems that dcmtk/dcmdata/dcdeftag.h has >> changed a lot. >> >> [ 94%] Building CXX object >> Libs/DICOM/Core/CMakeFiles/CTKDICOMCore.dir/ctkDICOMIndexer.cpp.o >> /tmp/buildd/ctk-0.1.0/Libs/DICOM/Core/ctkDICOMIndexer.cpp: In member >> function 'void ctkDICOMIndexer::addDirectory(ctkDICOMDatabase&, const >> QString&, const QString&, bool, bool)': >> /tmp/buildd/ctk-0.1.0/Libs/DICOM/Core/ctkDICOMIndexer.cpp:181:38: >> error: 'DCM_PatientsName' was not declared in this scope >> /tmp/buildd/ctk-0.1.0/Libs/DICOM/Core/ctkDICOMIndexer.cpp:213:33: >> error: 'DCM_PatientsBirthDate' was not declared in this scope >> /tmp/buildd/ctk-0.1.0/Libs/DICOM/Core/ctkDICOMIndexer.cpp:214:33: >> error: 'DCM_PatientsBirthTime' was not declared in this scope >> /tmp/buildd/ctk-0.1.0/Libs/DICOM/Core/ctkDICOMIndexer.cpp:215:33: >> error: 'DCM_PatientsSex' was not declared in this scope >> /tmp/buildd/ctk-0.1.0/Libs/DICOM/Core/ctkDICOMIndexer.cpp:216:33: >> error: 'DCM_PatientsAge' was not declared in this scope >> /tmp/buildd/ctk-0.1.0/Libs/DICOM/Core/ctkDICOMIndexer.cpp:224:33: >> error: 'DCM_PerformingPhysiciansName' was not declared in this scope >> /tmp/buildd/ctk-0.1.0/Libs/DICOM/Core/ctkDICOMIndexer.cpp:225:33: >> error: 'DCM_ReferringPhysiciansName' was not declared in this scope >> >> There are also things like that: >> /tmp/buildd/ctk-0.1.0/Libs/DICOM/Core/ctkDICOMQuery.cpp:407:54: error: >> no matching function for call to 'DcmSCU::closeAssociation(const >> OFCondition&)' >> >> Are there any plans to use an official version of DCMTK 3.6.0 in the future? >> >> Thanks >> Dominique >> _______________________________________________ >> Ctk-developers mailing list >> Ctk-developers at commontk.org >> http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers >> > > > > -- > Mathieu > From mathieu.malaterre at gmail.com Mon Jul 25 14:49:30 2011 From: mathieu.malaterre at gmail.com (Mathieu Malaterre) Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 16:49:30 +0200 Subject: [Ctk-developers] experiments with the official dcmtk 3.6.0 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Dominique, This issue is only visible for people not using SuperBuild. When using SuperBuild all kinds of include directories are added which are not added in 'system' include of dcmtk. Whoever merge the final dcmtk 3.6.0 patch upstream should give also a try without superbuild, that would be really neat ! 2cts On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 4:31 PM, Dominique Belhachemi wrote: > Hi Mathieu, > > this looks good. I also noticed your header patches like > > -#include "dcmimage.h" > +#include > > This could be applied upstream too. Right now they include all kind of > dcmtk subdirectories via CMake. > > Dominique > > > On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 3:29 AM, Mathieu Malaterre > wrote: >> Dominique, >> >> ?I did gave it a try back in March: >> >> https://github.com/malaterre/CTK/tree/dcmtk_compilation >> >> ?From the top of my head the transition pre/post 2009 keywords went >> fine. However I failed to realize the transition for the new API of >> DcmSCU. >> >> HTH >> >> On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 10:58 PM, Dominique Belhachemi >> wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I was trying to use CTK together with DCMTK 3.6.0. But I am running >>> into some issues here. It seems that dcmtk/dcmdata/dcdeftag.h has >>> changed a lot. >>> >>> [ 94%] Building CXX object >>> Libs/DICOM/Core/CMakeFiles/CTKDICOMCore.dir/ctkDICOMIndexer.cpp.o >>> /tmp/buildd/ctk-0.1.0/Libs/DICOM/Core/ctkDICOMIndexer.cpp: In member >>> function 'void ctkDICOMIndexer::addDirectory(ctkDICOMDatabase&, const >>> QString&, const QString&, bool, bool)': >>> /tmp/buildd/ctk-0.1.0/Libs/DICOM/Core/ctkDICOMIndexer.cpp:181:38: >>> error: 'DCM_PatientsName' was not declared in this scope >>> /tmp/buildd/ctk-0.1.0/Libs/DICOM/Core/ctkDICOMIndexer.cpp:213:33: >>> error: 'DCM_PatientsBirthDate' was not declared in this scope >>> /tmp/buildd/ctk-0.1.0/Libs/DICOM/Core/ctkDICOMIndexer.cpp:214:33: >>> error: 'DCM_PatientsBirthTime' was not declared in this scope >>> /tmp/buildd/ctk-0.1.0/Libs/DICOM/Core/ctkDICOMIndexer.cpp:215:33: >>> error: 'DCM_PatientsSex' was not declared in this scope >>> /tmp/buildd/ctk-0.1.0/Libs/DICOM/Core/ctkDICOMIndexer.cpp:216:33: >>> error: 'DCM_PatientsAge' was not declared in this scope >>> /tmp/buildd/ctk-0.1.0/Libs/DICOM/Core/ctkDICOMIndexer.cpp:224:33: >>> error: 'DCM_PerformingPhysiciansName' was not declared in this scope >>> /tmp/buildd/ctk-0.1.0/Libs/DICOM/Core/ctkDICOMIndexer.cpp:225:33: >>> error: 'DCM_ReferringPhysiciansName' was not declared in this scope >>> >>> There are also things like that: >>> /tmp/buildd/ctk-0.1.0/Libs/DICOM/Core/ctkDICOMQuery.cpp:407:54: error: >>> no matching function for call to 'DcmSCU::closeAssociation(const >>> OFCondition&)' >>> >>> Are there any plans to use an official version of DCMTK 3.6.0 in the future? >>> >>> Thanks >>> Dominique >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Ctk-developers mailing list >>> Ctk-developers at commontk.org >>> http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Mathieu >> > _______________________________________________ > Ctk-developers mailing list > Ctk-developers at commontk.org > http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers > -- Mathieu From jchris.fillionr at kitware.com Fri Jul 29 07:41:32 2011 From: jchris.fillionr at kitware.com (Jean-Christophe Fillion-Robin) Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 03:41:32 -0400 Subject: [Ctk-developers] commontk repository and "Owners" team In-Reply-To: <4E325AD3.1090103@dkfz-heidelberg.de> References: <4E325AD3.1090103@dkfz-heidelberg.de> Message-ID: Hi Sascha, Could you reply including the ctk developer list ? On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 3:01 AM, Sascha Zelzer wrote: > Hi guys, > > I would like to add another repository to our "commontk" organization on > github. The repo will contain "ArtisticStyle", a library for formatting > source code (I would use it in the plugin generator to format the generated > sources consitently). > Would also be nice to develop a script that could use both astyle and diff to check if the style of a given project is correct. > > It seems that only members of the team "Owners" can do that, right? Looking > at the "owners" of commontk, I feel a slight geographical dis-balance... ;-) > - I would like to suggest to add Marco to the Owners team too. > Done > Concerning our policy for adding new repositories, shall we define some > rules? I guess the rules could be as simple as: Discussion on the mailing list > Some kind of open discussion and voting before adding one after the other? > Instead of voting (where some people may leave the discussion dis-agreeing) ... may be we could reach consensus. See http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/open-source-values-consensus/1682 Merci, Jc > > Thanks, > > Sascha > -- +1 919 869 8849 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dicom at offis.de Fri Jul 29 08:54:53 2011 From: dicom at offis.de (OFFIS DICOM Team) Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 10:54:53 +0200 Subject: [Ctk-developers] CTK Update to latest DCMTK Message-ID: <4E32755D.6000402@offis.de> Dear all, the last two days I merged my changes regarding the adaptation of CTK to the latest DCMTK back in to the CTK master branch. I commited this stuff a few minutes ago. I also included some fixes where I stumbled over things that seemed wrong to me. Further, I added minor features at some positions, e.g. color support for the DICOM thumbnail/image rendering. Overall, I only worked on the DICOM parts, 99% on /Libs/DICOM, mostly the Core part. I also changed the repository location in the superbuild to fetch DCMTK from the official OFFIS repository at http://git.dcmtk.org/dcmtk.git . That works for me here. Nevertheless, since these are my first actual commits to CTK, I expect that I have done some mistakes, hopefully not too many serious ones ;) Please tell me and I will correct that as soon as possible. Best regards, Michael -- OFFIS DICOM Team, Escherweg 2, 26121 Oldenburg, Germany E-Mail: dicom at offis.de, URL: http://dicom.offis.de From s.zelzer at dkfz-heidelberg.de Fri Jul 29 09:13:49 2011 From: s.zelzer at dkfz-heidelberg.de (Sascha Zelzer) Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 11:13:49 +0200 Subject: [Ctk-developers] commontk repository and "Owners" team In-Reply-To: References: <4E325AD3.1090103@dkfz-heidelberg.de> Message-ID: <4E3279CD.5060403@dkfz-heidelberg.de> Hi, > > On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 3:01 AM, Sascha Zelzer > > wrote: > > Hi guys, > > I would like to add another repository to our "commontk" > organization on github. The repo will contain "ArtisticStyle", a > library for formatting source code (I would use it in the plugin > generator to format the generated sources consitently). > > > Would also be nice to develop a script that could use both astyle and > diff to check if the style of a given project is correct. Yes, this would be possible, but isn't that actually what KWStyle was supposed to do? > > > It seems that only members of the team "Owners" can do that, > right? Looking at the "owners" of commontk, I feel a slight > geographical dis-balance... ;-) - I would like to suggest to add > Marco to the Owners team too. > > Done Great, thanks. > > > Concerning our policy for adding new repositories, shall we define > some rules? > > > I guess the rules could be as simple as: Discussion on the mailing list Sure, that would be a prerequisite, IMHO. > > Some kind of open discussion and voting before adding one after > the other? > > > Instead of voting (where some people may leave the discussion > dis-agreeing) ... may be we could reach consensus. > > See > http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/open-source-values-consensus/1682 > > Yes, I like "consensus" :-) I will post a new mail for the astyle repo. Thanks, Sascha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From s.zelzer at dkfz-heidelberg.de Fri Jul 29 09:19:46 2011 From: s.zelzer at dkfz-heidelberg.de (Sascha Zelzer) Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 11:19:46 +0200 Subject: [Ctk-developers] Adding ArtisticStyle to commontk Message-ID: <4E327B32.80306@dkfz-heidelberg.de> Hi guys, I would like to exercise the "getting consensus" model for changes in commontk, as suggested by JC. Currently, there is a small program in CTK which allows to generate source code for CTK plug-ins (the ctkPluginGenerator). I'd like to add the ArtisticStyle library as a new project to commontk to use its code formatting capabilities to generate nicely formatted sources inside the ctkPluginGenerator. Any thoughts or objections? Thanks, Sascha From dicom at offis.de Fri Jul 29 10:05:56 2011 From: dicom at offis.de (OFFIS DICOM Team) Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 12:05:56 +0200 Subject: [Ctk-developers] CTK Update to latest DCMTK In-Reply-To: <4E32841E.8040308@dkfz.de> References: <4E32755D.6000402@offis.de> <4E32841E.8040308@dkfz.de> Message-ID: <4E328604.8050806@offis.de> Hi Marco, thanks for scanning through the changes! Am 29.07.2011 11:57, schrieb Marco Nolden: >> I also changed the repository location in the superbuild to fetch DCMTK >> from the official OFFIS repository at http://git.dcmtk.org/dcmtk.git . >> That works for me here. > > It works, but it is rather slow, takes about 10 minutes to clone from > DKFZ. I would also prefer to have an option to use an official release of > DCMTK, since we do that in MITK and also use CTK there. I already > commented on github, overlapping with this email, so I post the link > here, maybe the others could also comment on that topic: > > https://github.com/commontk/CTK/commit/1414293aec6c76bc5788e3ade9979150974bc568#commitcomment-502670 Please see some comments there. Regarding the clone time: I guess the server is not the fastest machine and also http is not really the fastest git protocol ;) Maybe we can work on the second issue. However, also consider that fetching updates will be much faster once you have a cloned copy. Another option would be to not clone all commits from the last 15 years from DCMTK but to only clone the last 3 years or something. I did not try that but guess it is possible with git (right?) and maybe leads to a huge speedup. >> Nevertheless, since these are my first actual commits to CTK, I expect >> that I have done some mistakes, hopefully not too many serious ones ;) >> Please tell me and I will correct that as soon as possible. >> > Everything looks fine to me. There is just one "Merge remote-tracking > branch 'origin/master'" commit we try to avoid in CTK by rebasing, but > that was probably just an accident. Yes, thanks for noting and sorry for that. I should take better care of this in the future. All the best, Michael -- OFFIS DICOM Team, Escherweg 2, 26121 Oldenburg, Germany E-Mail: dicom at offis.de, URL: http://dicom.offis.de From pieper at ibility.net Fri Jul 29 11:01:02 2011 From: pieper at ibility.net (Steve Pieper) Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 07:01:02 -0400 Subject: [Ctk-developers] Adding ArtisticStyle to commontk In-Reply-To: <4E327B32.80306@dkfz-heidelberg.de> References: <4E327B32.80306@dkfz-heidelberg.de> Message-ID: Hi Sascha - This sounds a nice addition. One question; could this be done as an external project? I think we would only need a repository if the library requires patches in order to work in CTK. Ideally these patches will be sent back upstream so we can use a release version of the library. -Steve On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 5:19 AM, Sascha Zelzer wrote: > Hi guys, > > I would like to exercise the "getting consensus" model for changes in > commontk, as suggested by JC. Currently, there is a small program in CTK > which allows to generate source code for CTK plug-ins (the > ctkPluginGenerator). I'd like to add the ArtisticStyle library as a new > project to commontk to use its code formatting capabilities to generate > nicely formatted sources inside the ctkPluginGenerator. > > Any thoughts or objections? > > Thanks, > Sascha > ______________________________**_________________ > Ctk-developers mailing list > Ctk-developers at commontk.org > http://public.kitware.com/cgi-**bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-**developers > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From m.nolden at dkfz-heidelberg.de Fri Jul 29 09:57:50 2011 From: m.nolden at dkfz-heidelberg.de (Marco Nolden) Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 11:57:50 +0200 Subject: [Ctk-developers] CTK Update to latest DCMTK In-Reply-To: <4E32755D.6000402@offis.de> References: <4E32755D.6000402@offis.de> Message-ID: <4E32841E.8040308@dkfz.de> Hi Michael, On 07/29/2011 10:54 AM, OFFIS DICOM Team wrote: > Dear all, > > the last two days I merged my changes regarding the adaptation of CTK to the > latest DCMTK back in to the CTK master branch. I commited this stuff a few > minutes ago. > > I also included some fixes where I stumbled over things that seemed wrong to > me. Further, I added minor features at some positions, e.g. color support > for the DICOM thumbnail/image rendering. Overall, I only worked on the DICOM > parts, 99% on /Libs/DICOM, mostly the Core part. > great work, thank you. > I also changed the repository location in the superbuild to fetch DCMTK from > the official OFFIS repository at http://git.dcmtk.org/dcmtk.git . That works > for me here. It works, but it is rather slow, takes about 10 minutes to clone from DKFZ. I would also prefer to have an option to use an official release of DCMTK, since we do that in MITK and also use CTK there. I already commented on github, overlapping with this email, so I post the link here, maybe the others could also comment on that topic: https://github.com/commontk/CTK/commit/1414293aec6c76bc5788e3ade9979150974bc568#commitcomment-502670 > > Nevertheless, since these are my first actual commits to CTK, I expect that > I have done some mistakes, hopefully not too many serious ones ;) Please > tell me and I will correct that as soon as possible. > > Best regards, > Michael > Everything looks fine to me. There is just one "Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/master'" commit we try to avoid in CTK by rebasing, but that was probably just an accident. Best regards, thanks again Marco -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dipl.-Inform. Med. Marco Nolden Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum (German Cancer Research Center) Div. Medical & Biological Informatics Tel: (+49) 6221-42 2325 Im Neuenheimer Feld 280 Fax: (+49) 6221-42 2345 D-69120 Heidelberg eMail: M.Nolden at dkfz.de From m.nolden at dkfz-heidelberg.de Fri Jul 29 11:25:57 2011 From: m.nolden at dkfz-heidelberg.de (Marco Nolden) Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 13:25:57 +0200 Subject: [Ctk-developers] CTK Update to latest DCMTK In-Reply-To: <4E328604.8050806@offis.de> References: <4E32755D.6000402@offis.de> <4E32841E.8040308@dkfz.de> <4E328604.8050806@offis.de> Message-ID: <4E3298C5.6040402@dkfz-heidelberg.de> Hi all, regarding fixed version vs HEAD I want to describe the situation for MITK and DCMTK here but maybe it also affects other projects using CTK and we could use it as a blueprint for similar situations: - we already use DCMTK in MITK - some projects using MITK require fixed versions of external libraries, at least for "critical" components, and DCMTK is critical since it deals with patient and image data - recently we started using CTK in MITK and of course we would like to "share" the same version of DCMTK In my opinion there are different solutions to this: 1. We adapt the CTK code that uses DCMTK in a way that it supports both 3.6 and the current HEAD. Then projects using CTK could provide their own DCMTK and everything works. It would still duplicate the CMake code to build DCMTK as an external project, so we could maybe insert a switch in CTK to select 3.6 or HEAD. 2. We leave the HEAD version. External projects have to make sure by their own testing that the required DCMTK functionality works as expected. Even then there should be some CMake mechanism to "freeze" the DCMTK version that is checked out. 3. We stick to 3.6 and wait for the next official release. I would prefer 1., but I cannot estimate how much effort this would be and how much functionality we would "loose" in CTK while using the stable version. For 2.: maybe the intermediate versions of DCMTK are also very reliable and stable and the "official releases" are only snapshots without special testing. Another remark regarding "versions": I know we agreed that CTK won't have released versions soon since it is under heavy development. But I think we shouldn't wait too long. For MITK we are now referring to fixed version by using GIT hashes which works but is sometimes cubersome. The debian packages already have a version number (0.1-2, 0.1-3). I know this is very experimental, but still we could think of tagging certain version of CTK just as a reference point for external projects. Ok, sorry for the long mail, please comment! Marco On 07/29/2011 12:05 PM, OFFIS DICOM Team wrote: > Hi Marco, > > thanks for scanning through the changes! > > Am 29.07.2011 11:57, schrieb Marco Nolden: > >>> I also changed the repository location in the superbuild to fetch DCMTK >>> from the official OFFIS repository at http://git.dcmtk.org/dcmtk.git . >>> That works for me here. >> >> It works, but it is rather slow, takes about 10 minutes to clone from >> DKFZ. I would also prefer to have an option to use an official release of >> DCMTK, since we do that in MITK and also use CTK there. I already >> commented on github, overlapping with this email, so I post the link >> here, maybe the others could also comment on that topic: >> >> https://github.com/commontk/CTK/commit/1414293aec6c76bc5788e3ade9979150974bc568#commitcomment-502670 > > Please see some comments there. > > Regarding the clone time: I guess the server is not the fastest machine and > also http is not really the fastest git protocol ;) Maybe we can work on the > second issue. > > However, also consider that fetching updates will be much faster once you > have a cloned copy. > > Another option would be to not clone all commits from the last 15 years from > DCMTK but to only clone the last 3 years or something. I did not try > that but guess it is possible with git (right?) and maybe leads to a huge > speedup. > >>> Nevertheless, since these are my first actual commits to CTK, I expect >>> that I have done some mistakes, hopefully not too many serious ones ;) >>> Please tell me and I will correct that as soon as possible. >>> >> Everything looks fine to me. There is just one "Merge remote-tracking >> branch 'origin/master'" commit we try to avoid in CTK by rebasing, but >> that was probably just an accident. > > Yes, thanks for noting and sorry for that. I should take better care of this > in the future. > > All the best, > Michael > -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dipl.-Inform. Med. Marco Nolden Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum (German Cancer Research Center) Div. Medical & Biological Informatics Tel: (+49) 6221-42 2325 Im Neuenheimer Feld 280 Fax: (+49) 6221-42 2345 D-69120 Heidelberg eMail: M.Nolden at dkfz.de From s.zelzer at dkfz-heidelberg.de Fri Jul 29 11:35:35 2011 From: s.zelzer at dkfz-heidelberg.de (Sascha Zelzer) Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 13:35:35 +0200 Subject: [Ctk-developers] Adding ArtisticStyle to commontk In-Reply-To: References: <4E327B32.80306@dkfz-heidelberg.de> Message-ID: <4E329B07.1060107@dkfz-heidelberg.de> Hi Steve I thought about that too, but after looking at the build system which comes with the download-able source packages, I was getting scared... There are three different packages for each major OS, each again with different make files or IDE project files. Therefore I think we will have less troubles with our own repo which adds CMake scripts to the library. Thanks, Sascha On 07/29/2011 01:01 PM, Steve Pieper wrote: > Hi Sascha - > > This sounds a nice addition. > > One question; could this be done as an external project? I think we > would only need a repository if the library requires patches in order > to work in CTK. Ideally these patches will be sent back upstream so > we can use a release version of the library. > > -Steve > > > > On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 5:19 AM, Sascha Zelzer > > wrote: > > Hi guys, > > I would like to exercise the "getting consensus" model for changes > in commontk, as suggested by JC. Currently, there is a small > program in CTK which allows to generate source code for CTK > plug-ins (the ctkPluginGenerator). I'd like to add the > ArtisticStyle library as a new project to commontk to use its code > formatting capabilities to generate nicely formatted sources > inside the ctkPluginGenerator. > > Any thoughts or objections? > > Thanks, > Sascha > _______________________________________________ > Ctk-developers mailing list > Ctk-developers at commontk.org > http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pieper at ibility.net Fri Jul 29 11:50:45 2011 From: pieper at ibility.net (Steve Pieper) Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 07:50:45 -0400 Subject: [Ctk-developers] Adding ArtisticStyle to commontk In-Reply-To: <4E329B07.1060107@dkfz-heidelberg.de> References: <4E327B32.80306@dkfz-heidelberg.de> <4E329B07.1060107@dkfz-heidelberg.de> Message-ID: Okay - make sense to me - add me to the forming consensus :) When it's all working let's offer back our changes to the astyle team in hopes that they can be in future releases. Dominique has me trained now to think about the packaging implications of our changes to upstream libraries. Best, Steve On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 7:35 AM, Sascha Zelzer wrote: > ** > Hi Steve > > I thought about that too, but after looking at the build system which comes > with the download-able source packages, I was getting scared... There are > three different packages for each major OS, each again with different make > files or IDE project files. Therefore I think we will have less troubles > with our own repo which adds CMake scripts to the library. > > Thanks, > Sascha > > > On 07/29/2011 01:01 PM, Steve Pieper wrote: > > Hi Sascha - > > This sounds a nice addition. > > One question; could this be done as an external project? I think we > would only need a repository if the library requires patches in order to > work in CTK. Ideally these patches will be sent back upstream so we can use > a release version of the library. > > -Steve > > > > On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 5:19 AM, Sascha Zelzer < > s.zelzer at dkfz-heidelberg.de> wrote: > >> Hi guys, >> >> I would like to exercise the "getting consensus" model for changes in >> commontk, as suggested by JC. Currently, there is a small program in CTK >> which allows to generate source code for CTK plug-ins (the >> ctkPluginGenerator). I'd like to add the ArtisticStyle library as a new >> project to commontk to use its code formatting capabilities to generate >> nicely formatted sources inside the ctkPluginGenerator. >> >> Any thoughts or objections? >> >> Thanks, >> Sascha >> _______________________________________________ >> Ctk-developers mailing list >> Ctk-developers at commontk.org >> http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers >> > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From s.zelzer at dkfz-heidelberg.de Fri Jul 29 11:57:37 2011 From: s.zelzer at dkfz-heidelberg.de (Sascha Zelzer) Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 13:57:37 +0200 Subject: [Ctk-developers] Adding ArtisticStyle to commontk In-Reply-To: References: <4E327B32.80306@dkfz-heidelberg.de> <4E329B07.1060107@dkfz-heidelberg.de> Message-ID: <4E32A031.5070200@dkfz-heidelberg.de> On 07/29/2011 01:50 PM, Steve Pieper wrote: > Okay - make sense to me - add me to the forming consensus :) Okay ;-) > > When it's all working let's offer back our changes to the astyle team > in hopes that they can be in future releases. Dominique has me > trained now to think about the packaging implications of our changes > to upstream libraries. Yes, good point. We have to take packaging issues seriously. In this case, there are no code changes to the library itself. We would need a "FindAStyle.cmake" script and maybe a CTK_USE_SYSTEM_ASTYLE variable to find an already installed library. If it is missing we can conveniently build it from our commontk repo. Thanks for your suggestions, Sascha > > Best, > Steve > > On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 7:35 AM, Sascha Zelzer > > wrote: > > Hi Steve > > I thought about that too, but after looking at the build system > which comes with the download-able source packages, I was getting > scared... There are three different packages for each major OS, > each again with different make files or IDE project files. > Therefore I think we will have less troubles with our own repo > which adds CMake scripts to the library. > > Thanks, > Sascha > > > On 07/29/2011 01:01 PM, Steve Pieper wrote: >> Hi Sascha - >> >> This sounds a nice addition. >> >> One question; could this be done as an external project? I >> think we would only need a repository if the library requires >> patches in order to work in CTK. Ideally these patches will be >> sent back upstream so we can use a release version of the library. >> >> -Steve >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 5:19 AM, Sascha Zelzer >> > > wrote: >> >> Hi guys, >> >> I would like to exercise the "getting consensus" model for >> changes in commontk, as suggested by JC. Currently, there is >> a small program in CTK which allows to generate source code >> for CTK plug-ins (the ctkPluginGenerator). I'd like to add >> the ArtisticStyle library as a new project to commontk to use >> its code formatting capabilities to generate nicely formatted >> sources inside the ctkPluginGenerator. >> >> Any thoughts or objections? >> >> Thanks, >> Sascha >> _______________________________________________ >> Ctk-developers mailing list >> Ctk-developers at commontk.org >> http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers >> >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephen.aylward at kitware.com Fri Jul 29 12:13:23 2011 From: stephen.aylward at kitware.com (Stephen Aylward) Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 08:13:23 -0400 Subject: [Ctk-developers] commontk repository and "Owners" team In-Reply-To: References: <4E325AD3.1090103@dkfz-heidelberg.de> Message-ID: , >> >> I would like to add another repository to our "commontk" organization on github. The repo will contain "ArtisticStyle", a library for formatting source code (I would use it in the plugin generator to format the generated sources consitently). > > > Would also be nice to develop a script that could use both astyle and diff to check if the style of a given project is correct. Great idea! With keep thinking of updating kwstyle, but building on top of a community supported system seems great. Is this feasible in the near-term? s -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephen.aylward at kitware.com Fri Jul 29 12:06:17 2011 From: stephen.aylward at kitware.com (Stephen Aylward) Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 08:06:17 -0400 Subject: [Ctk-developers] CTK Update to latest DCMTK In-Reply-To: <4E32755D.6000402@offis.de> References: <4E32755D.6000402@offis.de> Message-ID: Thank you! This is going to be extremely useful! Stephen ---- Stephen R. Aylward, Ph.D. Director of Medical Imaging Research 919-969-6990 x300 * Sent from an Android Tablet. Please forgive the typos and terseness. On Jul 29, 2011 4:55 AM, "OFFIS DICOM Team" wrote: > Dear all, > > the last two days I merged my changes regarding the adaptation of CTK to the > latest DCMTK back in to the CTK master branch. I commited this stuff a few > minutes ago. > > I also included some fixes where I stumbled over things that seemed wrong to > me. Further, I added minor features at some positions, e.g. color support > for the DICOM thumbnail/image rendering. Overall, I only worked on the DICOM > parts, 99% on /Libs/DICOM, mostly the Core part. > > I also changed the repository location in the superbuild to fetch DCMTK from > the official OFFIS repository at http://git.dcmtk.org/dcmtk.git . That works > for me here. > > Nevertheless, since these are my first actual commits to CTK, I expect that > I have done some mistakes, hopefully not too many serious ones ;) Please > tell me and I will correct that as soon as possible. > > Best regards, > Michael > > -- > OFFIS DICOM Team, Escherweg 2, 26121 Oldenburg, Germany > E-Mail: dicom at offis.de, URL: http://dicom.offis.de > _______________________________________________ > Ctk-developers mailing list > Ctk-developers at commontk.org > http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jchris.fillionr at kitware.com Fri Jul 29 12:48:55 2011 From: jchris.fillionr at kitware.com (Jean-Christophe Fillion-Robin) Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 08:48:55 -0400 Subject: [Ctk-developers] Adding ArtisticStyle to commontk In-Reply-To: <4E32A031.5070200@dkfz-heidelberg.de> References: <4E327B32.80306@dkfz-heidelberg.de> <4E329B07.1060107@dkfz-heidelberg.de> <4E32A031.5070200@dkfz-heidelberg.de> Message-ID: I just added my note explaining how to create a svn-mirror. See http://www.commontk.org/index.php/Documentation/Create_SVN_Project_Mirror Regarding adding option like CTK_USE_SYSTEM_ASTYLE, i propose we think about the problem as a whole and not just about an exception for AStyle. Thanks Jc On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 7:57 AM, Sascha Zelzer wrote: > ** > On 07/29/2011 01:50 PM, Steve Pieper wrote: > > Okay - make sense to me - add me to the forming consensus :) > > Okay ;-) > > > When it's all working let's offer back our changes to the astyle team in > hopes that they can be in future releases. Dominique has me trained now to > think about the packaging implications of our changes to upstream libraries. > > Yes, good point. We have to take packaging issues seriously. In this case, > there are no code changes to the library itself. We would need a > "FindAStyle.cmake" script and maybe a CTK_USE_SYSTEM_ASTYLE variable to find > an already installed library. If it is missing we can conveniently build it > from our commontk repo. > > Thanks for your suggestions, > > Sascha > > > Best, > Steve > > On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 7:35 AM, Sascha Zelzer < > s.zelzer at dkfz-heidelberg.de> wrote: > >> Hi Steve >> >> I thought about that too, but after looking at the build system which >> comes with the download-able source packages, I was getting scared... There >> are three different packages for each major OS, each again with different >> make files or IDE project files. Therefore I think we will have less >> troubles with our own repo which adds CMake scripts to the library. >> >> Thanks, >> Sascha >> >> >> On 07/29/2011 01:01 PM, Steve Pieper wrote: >> >> Hi Sascha - >> >> This sounds a nice addition. >> >> One question; could this be done as an external project? I think we >> would only need a repository if the library requires patches in order to >> work in CTK. Ideally these patches will be sent back upstream so we can use >> a release version of the library. >> >> -Steve >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 5:19 AM, Sascha Zelzer < >> s.zelzer at dkfz-heidelberg.de> wrote: >> >>> Hi guys, >>> >>> I would like to exercise the "getting consensus" model for changes in >>> commontk, as suggested by JC. Currently, there is a small program in CTK >>> which allows to generate source code for CTK plug-ins (the >>> ctkPluginGenerator). I'd like to add the ArtisticStyle library as a new >>> project to commontk to use its code formatting capabilities to generate >>> nicely formatted sources inside the ctkPluginGenerator. >>> >>> Any thoughts or objections? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Sascha >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Ctk-developers mailing list >>> Ctk-developers at commontk.org >>> http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers >>> >> >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Ctk-developers mailing list > Ctk-developers at commontk.org > http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers > > -- +1 919 869 8849 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From s.zelzer at dkfz-heidelberg.de Fri Jul 29 12:54:10 2011 From: s.zelzer at dkfz-heidelberg.de (Sascha Zelzer) Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 14:54:10 +0200 Subject: [Ctk-developers] Adding ArtisticStyle to commontk In-Reply-To: References: <4E327B32.80306@dkfz-heidelberg.de> <4E329B07.1060107@dkfz-heidelberg.de> <4E32A031.5070200@dkfz-heidelberg.de> Message-ID: <4E32AD72.6010204@dkfz-heidelberg.de> On 07/29/2011 02:48 PM, Jean-Christophe Fillion-Robin wrote: > I just added my note explaining how to create a svn-mirror. > See > http://www.commontk.org/index.php/Documentation/Create_SVN_Project_Mirror Cool, that will be handy - thanks! > > Regarding adding option like CTK_USE_SYSTEM_ASTYLE, i propose we think > about the problem as a whole and not just about an exception for AStyle. Sure, that was just an example. Thanks, Sascha > > Thanks > Jc > > On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 7:57 AM, Sascha Zelzer > > wrote: > > On 07/29/2011 01:50 PM, Steve Pieper wrote: >> Okay - make sense to me - add me to the forming consensus :) > Okay ;-) > >> >> When it's all working let's offer back our changes to the astyle >> team in hopes that they can be in future releases. Dominique has >> me trained now to think about the packaging implications of our >> changes to upstream libraries. > Yes, good point. We have to take packaging issues seriously. In > this case, there are no code changes to the library itself. We > would need a "FindAStyle.cmake" script and maybe a > CTK_USE_SYSTEM_ASTYLE variable to find an already installed > library. If it is missing we can conveniently build it from our > commontk repo. > > Thanks for your suggestions, > > Sascha > >> >> Best, >> Steve >> >> On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 7:35 AM, Sascha Zelzer >> > > wrote: >> >> Hi Steve >> >> I thought about that too, but after looking at the build >> system which comes with the download-able source packages, I >> was getting scared... There are three different packages for >> each major OS, each again with different make files or IDE >> project files. Therefore I think we will have less troubles >> with our own repo which adds CMake scripts to the library. >> >> Thanks, >> Sascha >> >> >> On 07/29/2011 01:01 PM, Steve Pieper wrote: >>> Hi Sascha - >>> >>> This sounds a nice addition. >>> >>> One question; could this be done as an external project? I >>> think we would only need a repository if the library >>> requires patches in order to work in CTK. Ideally these >>> patches will be sent back upstream so we can use a release >>> version of the library. >>> >>> -Steve >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 5:19 AM, Sascha Zelzer >>> >> > wrote: >>> >>> Hi guys, >>> >>> I would like to exercise the "getting consensus" model >>> for changes in commontk, as suggested by JC. Currently, >>> there is a small program in CTK which allows to generate >>> source code for CTK plug-ins (the ctkPluginGenerator). >>> I'd like to add the ArtisticStyle library as a new >>> project to commontk to use its code formatting >>> capabilities to generate nicely formatted sources inside >>> the ctkPluginGenerator. >>> >>> Any thoughts or objections? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Sascha >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Ctk-developers mailing list >>> Ctk-developers at commontk.org >>> >>> http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers >>> >>> >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Ctk-developers mailing list > Ctk-developers at commontk.org > http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers > > > > > -- > +1 919 869 8849 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jchris.fillionr at kitware.com Fri Jul 29 12:57:25 2011 From: jchris.fillionr at kitware.com (Jean-Christophe Fillion-Robin) Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 08:57:25 -0400 Subject: [Ctk-developers] CTK Update to latest DCMTK In-Reply-To: References: <4E32755D.6000402@offis.de> Message-ID: As a repeat of my comment in https://github.com/commontk/CTK/commit/1414293aec6c76bc5788e3ade9979150974bc568#commitcomment-502862 "Instead of specifying "origin/master", would it be possible to use a specific SHA1 as a GIT_TAG. Doing so will be more deterministic and ensure all developers / checkout will behave the same way. Before, origin/patched associated with our own DCMTK was a "controller" moving target." Marco> Would using a specific SHA1 can be considered as satisfactory ? To speed up the checkout we can also keep commontk mirror and remove the patched branch. Thanks, Jc On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 8:06 AM, Stephen Aylward < stephen.aylward at kitware.com> wrote: > Thank you! This is going to be extremely useful! > > Stephen > > ---- > Stephen R. Aylward, Ph.D. > Director of Medical Imaging Research > 919-969-6990 x300 > > * Sent from an Android Tablet. Please forgive the typos and terseness. > On Jul 29, 2011 4:55 AM, "OFFIS DICOM Team" wrote: > > Dear all, > > > > the last two days I merged my changes regarding the adaptation of CTK to > the > > latest DCMTK back in to the CTK master branch. I commited this stuff a > few > > minutes ago. > > > > I also included some fixes where I stumbled over things that seemed wrong > to > > me. Further, I added minor features at some positions, e.g. color support > > for the DICOM thumbnail/image rendering. Overall, I only worked on the > DICOM > > parts, 99% on /Libs/DICOM, mostly the Core part. > > > > I also changed the repository location in the superbuild to fetch DCMTK > from > > the official OFFIS repository at http://git.dcmtk.org/dcmtk.git . That > works > > for me here. > > > > Nevertheless, since these are my first actual commits to CTK, I expect > that > > I have done some mistakes, hopefully not too many serious ones ;) Please > > tell me and I will correct that as soon as possible. > > > > Best regards, > > Michael > > > > -- > > OFFIS DICOM Team, Escherweg 2, 26121 Oldenburg, Germany > > E-Mail: dicom at offis.de, URL: http://dicom.offis.de > > _______________________________________________ > > Ctk-developers mailing list > > Ctk-developers at commontk.org > > http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers > > _______________________________________________ > Ctk-developers mailing list > Ctk-developers at commontk.org > http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers > > -- +1 919 869 8849 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From julien.finet at kitware.com Sun Jul 31 21:52:22 2011 From: julien.finet at kitware.com (Julien Finet) Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2011 17:52:22 -0400 Subject: [Ctk-developers] CTK Update to latest DCMTK In-Reply-To: <4E32755D.6000402@offis.de> References: <4E32755D.6000402@offis.de> Message-ID: Hi Michael, Nice job !!! It seems that nightly builds are now failing. -fPIC is missing: http://my.cdash.org/viewBuildError.php?buildid=214617 - Warning with the compilation of dcmtk: http://my.cdash.org/viewBuildError.php?type=1&buildid=214303 Can you give a look ?** Thanks, Julien. On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 4:54 AM, OFFIS DICOM Team wrote: > Dear all, > > the last two days I merged my changes regarding the adaptation of CTK to > the > latest DCMTK back in to the CTK master branch. I commited this stuff a few > minutes ago. > > I also included some fixes where I stumbled over things that seemed wrong > to > me. Further, I added minor features at some positions, e.g. color support > for the DICOM thumbnail/image rendering. Overall, I only worked on the > DICOM > parts, 99% on /Libs/DICOM, mostly the Core part. > > I also changed the repository location in the superbuild to fetch DCMTK > from > the official OFFIS repository at http://git.dcmtk.org/dcmtk.git . That > works > for me here. > > Nevertheless, since these are my first actual commits to CTK, I expect that > I have done some mistakes, hopefully not too many serious ones ;) Please > tell me and I will correct that as soon as possible. > > Best regards, > Michael > > -- > OFFIS DICOM Team, Escherweg 2, 26121 Oldenburg, Germany > E-Mail: dicom at offis.de, URL: http://dicom.offis.de > ______________________________**_________________ > Ctk-developers mailing list > Ctk-developers at commontk.org > http://public.kitware.com/cgi-**bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-**developers > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: