sell ImageJ

[pierre LETESSIER]

Hi,

First, sorry for my english.

I am in a training period and I have to develop an image processing software
to analyse radiographies for a company.

I would like to know if my company can sell ImageJ and the plugins
I developed to his clients.

Is there an ImageJ licence?

Thanks

Pierre Letessier

[Paolo Ariano]

Il giorno mar, 15/05/2007 alle 13.03 +0200, pierre LETESSIER ha scritto:
> I would like to know if my company can sell ImageJ and the plugins
> I developed to his clients.

yes, but please let them be open-source and redistribute your plugins to
the community

> Is there an ImageJ licence?

disclaimer:

ImageJ is being developed at the National Institutes of Health by an
employee of the Federal Government in the course of his official duties.
Pursuant to Title 17, Section 105 of the United States Code, this
software is not subject to copyright protection and is in the public
domain. ImageJ is an experimental system. NIH assumes no responsibility
whatsoever for its use by other parties, and makes no guarantees,
expressed or implied, about its quality, reliability, or any other
characteristic.

hth
paolo

PS Imagej under GPL ?

--
Neuroscience PhD
CNISM Post-Doc @ University of Torino
www.personalweb.unito.it/paolo.ariano

[Adrian Daerr]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

> I would like to know if my company can sell ImageJ and the plugins
> I developed to his clients.
>
> Is there an ImageJ licence?

Yes, you can sell ImageJ and your plugins: ImageJ is in the public
domain, see the (very short) licence statement at the beginning of the
main class file ImageJ.java:

http://rsb.info.nih.gov/ij/developer/api/ij/ImageJ.html

Beyond that it's up to you to see if and how you meet Wayne Rasband's
requests mentioned in the licence statement. He is easy to contact
(reading this list in particular), so you can see with him directly if
you have doubts.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD4DBQFGSauDUKl/wQSyHWgRAlmkAKCC3X0Sv4GIoRCH66+MBZLGm7Jv3gCWMduA
ate5NKYewxs6CjTpLXRJmA==
=cJDH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Gabriel Landini]

On Tuesday 15 May 2007 13:45:55 Adrian Daerr wrote:
> Yes, you can sell ImageJ and your plugins: ImageJ is in the public
> domain, see the (very short) licence statement at the beginning of the
> main class file ImageJ.java:

What if the clients find out that you are selling them software that is free?
They may not be very amused...

I guess that it is a better idea to make clear that IJ is free and get contracted to develop the plugins or macros that do not yet exist.

Also consider this:
A very large number of IJ plugins have been released under GPL. This means that if one modifies them or uses code from them, one is bound to release the derived code too.
Since the java classes can be de-compiled quite easily, any infringment would be quite obvious.

Perhaps somebody else can clarify this.

Regards,

Gabriel

[Adrian Daerr]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Gabriel Landini wrote:
> What if the clients find out that you are selling them software that is free?
> They may not be very amused...

The point is you are allowed to bundle ImageJ with your plugins into
something that works out of the box, and sell it. If ImageJ was released
under the terms of the GPL, you could still sell your plugins, but the
client would have to download and install ImageJ separately (unless a
non-GPL licence for ImageJ were negotiated with the author(s)).

I am personnally a big fan of open source, but I don't need to write
programs for a living. On ImageJ Wayne manages to have both worlds
coexist nicely and often to the benefit of both.
To give an example, e.g. Scion corp. profited from NIHImage and then
ImageJ to have a working program to bundle with its acquisition boards,
which in turn added frame grabbing capability to the program and
attracted new users. Of course, Scion makes money on its boards, not on
the software which it offers for download, but the point is that it
could not have included NIHImage/ImagJ on a CD with a board each time it
sold one, if the licence were GPL.

regards,
Adrian

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGS0IWUKl/wQSyHWgRAuCCAKCAsQSBp4ayXzOp4UPky3A8QVzSIQCePK6x
ErzXMLmhkdrx8Ll385WgbSE=
=CVv9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Frederick Ross]

On 5/15/07, Gabriel Landini <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On Tuesday 15 May 2007 13:45:55 Adrian Daerr wrote:
> A very large number of IJ plugins have been released under GPL. This means that if one modifies them or uses code from them, one is bound to release the derived code too.
> Since the java classes can be de-compiled quite easily, any infringment would be quite obvious.

...and the design is also often quite obvious.  For instance, my code
feels a lot like LISP in how I organize functions (with all the higher
order functions unrolled).

I'm one of those who releases code under GPL, and I would be
distinctly not amused. ImageJ's core is public domain (I think this is
probably a mistake, but I'm of the generation that grew up with the
GPL), but you have to abide by the individual license of every plugin
that you include, call, or borrow code from.  The free software world
has a long memory for infractions like this, and it can get really
ugly.  Better to sell your services, and provide your client and the
world with your source code.

--
Frederick Ross
Graduate Fellow, (|Siggia> + |McKinney>)/sqrt(2) Lab
The Rockefeller University
Je ne suis pas Fred Cross!

[dscho]

Hi,

On Wed, 16 May 2007, Frederick Ross wrote:

> On 5/15/07, Gabriel Landini <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > On Tuesday 15 May 2007 13:45:55 Adrian Daerr wrote:
> > A very large number of IJ plugins have been released under GPL. This means
> > that if one modifies them or uses code from them, one is bound to release
> > the derived code too.
> > Since the java classes can be de-compiled quite easily, any infringment
> > would be quite obvious.
>
> ...and the design is also often quite obvious.  For instance, my code
> feels a lot like LISP in how I organize functions (with all the higher
> order functions unrolled).
>
> I'm one of those who releases code under GPL, and I would be
> distinctly not amused. ImageJ's core is public domain (I think this is
> probably a mistake,

It is not. It is a legal necessity. So don't complain about it. Just live
with it.

> but I'm of the generation that grew up with the GPL), but you have to
> abide by the individual license of every plugin that you include, call,
> or borrow code from.  The free software world has a long memory for
> infractions like this, and it can get really ugly.  Better to sell your
> services, and provide your client and the world with your source code.

Obviously, I agree. It is always wrong to exploit other people.

Ciao,
Dscho

[pierre LETESSIER]

Hi,

In fact, I asked this question to find a reason to not use ImageJ for my
project. I hoped ImageJ was protected by a licence which forbid to sell it.
I almost already complete my program in C++. But there are several
persons (some of my teachers) who think I would have to use ImageJ.

Of course ImageJ is a very good software and I use it very often this
year for my studies and to test some operators that I didn't know.
But the graphical interface is not adapted to make a soft which will be
used by surgeons.

Is there a project to develop a new interface?

Some of my friends use ImageJ during their training period. They use the
interface. Is it possible to use only the libraries of ImageJ?

And what IDE do you use? They have problem to use Eclipse.

Thanks and sorry again for my english.

Pierre

Johannes Schindelin a écrit :

> Hi,
>
> On Wed, 16 May 2007, Frederick Ross wrote:
>
>  
>> On 5/15/07, Gabriel Landini <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>    
>>> On Tuesday 15 May 2007 13:45:55 Adrian Daerr wrote:
>>> A very large number of IJ plugins have been released under GPL. This means
>>> that if one modifies them or uses code from them, one is bound to release
>>> the derived code too.
>>> Since the java classes can be de-compiled quite easily, any infringment
>>> would be quite obvious.
>>>      
>> ...and the design is also often quite obvious.  For instance, my code
>> feels a lot like LISP in how I organize functions (with all the higher
>> order functions unrolled).
>>
>> I'm one of those who releases code under GPL, and I would be
>> distinctly not amused. ImageJ's core is public domain (I think this is
>> probably a mistake,
>>    
>
> It is not. It is a legal necessity. So don't complain about it. Just live
> with it.
>
>  
>> but I'm of the generation that grew up with the GPL), but you have to
>> abide by the individual license of every plugin that you include, call,
>> or borrow code from.  The free software world has a long memory for
>> infractions like this, and it can get really ugly.  Better to sell your
>> services, and provide your client and the world with your source code.
>>    
>
> Obviously, I agree. It is always wrong to exploit other people.
>
> Ciao,
> Dscho
>
>  

[dscho]

Hi,

On Mon, 5 Mar 2007, Pierre Letessier wrote:

> In fact, I asked this question to find a reason to not use ImageJ for my
> project.

You should have said so ;-)

> I hoped ImageJ was protected by a licence which forbid to sell it.

No, ImageJ is free as in beer, as well as free as in freedom.

> I almost already complete my program in C++. But there are several
> persons (some of my teachers) who think I would have to use ImageJ.

There are other advantages to ImageJ than it just being a free piece of
software.

You would not believe how hard it can be to maintain a program in C++ for
multiple platforms. Some vendors have a *cough* peculiar *cough* way to
interpret standards. Funnily enough, exactly the same vendors tried to
kill off Java.

> Of course ImageJ is a very good software and I use it very often this
> year for my studies and to test some operators that I didn't know. But
> the graphical interface is not adapted to make a soft which will be used
> by surgeons.
>
> Is there a project to develop a new interface?

There have been a few ports to the Swing interface. Please search the list
archive if you want to know more.

> Some of my friends use ImageJ during their training period. They use the
> interface. Is it possible to use only the libraries of ImageJ?

Definitely. See for example the Servlet link on the ImageJ website.

> And what IDE do you use? They have problem to use Eclipse.

I know of success stories using Eclipse and Netbeans. Personally, I use vi
and the command line from a long standing habit.

Ciao,
Dscho

[Ben Woodcroft]

I personally love eclipse, and use it for ImageJ dev.

ImageJ Eclipse Howtos:
http://imagejdocu.tudor.lu/imagej-documentation-wiki/Members/ppirrotte/howtos/the-imagej-eclipse-howto/
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~kimo/blog/computer/imagej_eclipse.html

ben

On 5/17/07, Johannes Schindelin <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, 5 Mar 2007, Pierre Letessier wrote:
>
> > In fact, I asked this question to find a reason to not use ImageJ for my
> > project.
>
> You should have said so ;-)
>
> > I hoped ImageJ was protected by a licence which forbid to sell it.
>
> No, ImageJ is free as in beer, as well as free as in freedom.
>
> > I almost already complete my program in C++. But there are several
> > persons (some of my teachers) who think I would have to use ImageJ.
>
> There are other advantages to ImageJ than it just being a free piece of
> software.
>
> You would not believe how hard it can be to maintain a program in C++ for
> multiple platforms. Some vendors have a *cough* peculiar *cough* way to
> interpret standards. Funnily enough, exactly the same vendors tried to
> kill off Java.
>
> > Of course ImageJ is a very good software and I use it very often this
> > year for my studies and to test some operators that I didn't know. But
> > the graphical interface is not adapted to make a soft which will be used
> > by surgeons.
> >
> > Is there a project to develop a new interface?
>
> There have been a few ports to the Swing interface. Please search the list
> archive if you want to know more.
>
> > Some of my friends use ImageJ during their training period. They use the
> > interface. Is it possible to use only the libraries of ImageJ?
>
> Definitely. See for example the Servlet link on the ImageJ website.
>
> > And what IDE do you use? They have problem to use Eclipse.
>
> I know of success stories using Eclipse and Netbeans. Personally, I use vi
> and the command line from a long standing habit.
>
> Ciao,
> Dscho
>

[Paolo Ariano]

Il giorno mer, 16/05/2007 alle 18.53 -0400, Frederick Ross ha scritto:
> I'm one of those who releases code under GPL, and I would be

thanks to al people are releasing their code under GPL

> distinctly not amused. ImageJ's core is public domain (I think this is

maybe the solution, i've proposed in the past, would be to release
ImageJ under GPL ?

till next
paolo
--
Neuroscience PhD
CNISM Post-Doc @ University of Torino
www.personalweb.unito.it/paolo.ariano

[Adrian Daerr]

Paolo Ariano wrote:
> maybe the solution, i've proposed in the past, would be to release
> ImageJ under GPL ?

Well, besides the answer by Johannes Schindelin, another would be:
nobody prevents *you* from doing it. Just grab a copy, rename the project
and publish it under the GPL. You can always put a more restrictive
licence on a less restrictive one. Of course that only prevents code from
your branch from finding its way back into the original ImageJ. Is it
worth it ?

I don't know what precisely bothers you with people re-using and selling
ImageJ (they must create enough added value to sell it I believe), but
this reminds very common discussions of GPL vs BSD-style licenses. So as
this goes a lot beyond the purpose of this mailing list, I suggest the
discussion be pursued off-list if necessary.

best regards from Paris
Adrian

[Udai Nanda]

I want to know whether we can rename/modify the ImageJ program and sell it with our company's name.
Because this is the best Image Analysis Program with so many plugins and if it can be utilised by us to sell it with our own microscopes, plz let me knw.