[Insight-developers] Patented code

[Terry Yoo]

Stephen R. Aylward wrote:

> Also, to clarify - all code in ITK is considered open-source.   You can 
> read the terms at the top of any of the header files.   It grants the 
> distribution, modification, and use of the code.   That has been the 
> case from the start for ITK.   We have never agreed on what to do with 
> patented code.  There is no provision for patent code in ITK.
> 
> The terms of distribution given at the top of every file in ITK are
> "Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
> modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are 
> met:"
> 
> The conditions do not limit use in any way.   If a method is patented, 
> the terms agreed to by submitting the code to ITK grants the world the 
> right to use the method in any form, without paying a fee, including use 
> for commercial purposes.
> 
> Stephen
> 
> Jay Udupa wrote:
> 
>>
>> I thought there is a mechanism that has already been incorporated to 
>> handle implementations of patented methods. Fuzzy connenctedness 
>> definitely belongs to that category since I hold a patent on that method.
>>
>> Jay Udupa
>> ____
>>

Stephen,

I believe that Jay is essentially correct in his impression.
We *did* consider holding a patented directory which included
those elements that were encumbered by patents.  We discussed
the need to keep those elements separate and to build no
dependencies within the toolkit upon anything that resided
in that directory.  Essentially, it requires two builds for
every test... "with patented" and "without patented."  This
was essentially modeled after a version of VTK which has/had
this provision mostly to provide Marching Cubes, which *is*
patented.  Bill tells me that he intends to hold a party the
day the Marching Cubes patent expires.

After a while, since no one requested that anything be placed
in that directory, we concluded at one of our quarterly
meetings to abolish the patented directory.  Jay, that was
when the understanding changed.  I believe you were present
when this happened.  At no time has anyone requested that
their modules be set aside in the patented directory, so
the unused provision was essentially dropped from consideration.
It appears that we must reconsider this notion.

The consortium is strongly directing its focus toward open
sources copyrights and licensing without restrictions.  I
strongly endorse this idea, but realistically I know that
we must deal with patented methods.

Luis points out that there are as many as four methods that
we must consider under this discussion.  I suggest that
we take up this issue on the t-con and direct some energy
toward resolving this issue.  Luis has said that there was
considerable interest in an open-source active shape
implementation, which was in fact the exact point of
making the A2D2 awards.

This is definitely not the phun part.

Talk to you on Friday.

Terry


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry S. Yoo, Ph.D.
National Library of Medicine          National Institutes of Health
High Performance Computing and Communications       yoo at nlm.nih.gov
-------------------------------------------------------------------