Re: Question about a licensing problem

2014-03-18 Thread Gert Wollny
Hello, thanks for the answers. As those of Debian-med have seen, I went out to ask the authors about the licese change. As for all the other pointers, the way version 2.21 is written, I think rewriting the algorithm from scratch based on the original paper is probably easier that understandi

Re: Question about a licensing problem

2014-03-17 Thread Craig Small
On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 01:17:04PM +0100, Gert Wollny wrote: > one version, 2.21 is GPL, but already for reasonable sized brain > image data the code crashes, and the way the code is written there > is no easy way to fix this, and hence, Oscar went with version 3.0, > which works. If the API is the

Re: Question about a licensing problem

2014-03-17 Thread Andreas Tille
Hi Gert, On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 01:17:04PM +0100, Gert Wollny wrote: > ... > > * My first course of action would be to ask the authors of maxflow > to relicense. I remember to have seen a nice example letter one of > the Debian-med pages for doing just that, but right now I can't find > it. > An

Re: Question about a licensing problem

2014-03-17 Thread Paul Wise
My approach would be to ask upstream to revert back to the GPL. If they refuse then look for an alternative free implementation. If none exists revert back to using and packaging the GPL version. Also work on some patches to improve the GPL version and send them upstream. If upstream refuses to

Question about a licensing problem

2014-03-17 Thread Gert Wollny
Dear all, one of my colleagues, Oscar (in the CC) recently got a software paper accepted that proposes a "Multivariate Bayesian Image Segmentation Tool" that can be used for Brain MR segmentation. Our plan is to package this for Debian, but we have a licensing problem: The software makes use