On 28/01/2008, Bruno Postle wrote: > Yes though there has been some discussion of removing the limitation > upstream. > > [biased summary follows: basically a company called IPIX was > patent-trolling around the panoramic imaging industry. Although the > consensus seemed to be that libpano didn't actually infringe their > patents, the library was preemptively restricted to only allow input > fisheye images with a field of view less than 160 degrees.] > > IPIX went bust and their patents were bought by Sony, now this > artificial limitation seems a bit of an anachronism.
I've read a brief summary, indeed. I'm wondering what the current status of Sony is. I seem to recall that in case the patents are not being enforced, it might be OK to include such work into Debian. I guess that it specially applies if there's a consensus stating there's no actual infringement. > > I was thinking of adding info/pointers about that in the common doc > > location that is /usr/share/doc/$package/README.Debian. > > Yes though the default hugin-0.7.0 behaviour (if no autopano tool is > installed) will appear broken without this extra script. Oops, I meant documentating why such a (noop) script is needed, where to find autopano tools, etc. > Yes the libraries only exist because I nagged Pablo about the > installed package size, there is no intention to provide a stable API. > A change in location ought to be implemented upstream though. OK, I thought so (no stable API), but preferred to make sure. > [I'm not sure if this will get through to pkg-phototools-devel as I'm > not subscribed] The list isn't moderated or restricted, as you can see on [1]. 1. http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-phototools-devel/2008-January/thread.html Cheers, -- Cyril Brulebois
pgpRJNqpUObHV.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Pkg-phototools-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-phototools-devel
