Re: Binary descriptors for OpenCV

[Simon Tournier <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com>]

Hi,

On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 at 15:12, Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net> wrote:

> What shall we do with this patch?  Can we accept it or does it cross a
> line we don’t want to cross?

I concur with Maxim’s message.  If the license is compliant for
redistributing, then I do not see any blocker for inclusion.

Somehow, I do not any difference with the package ’gnubg’ for example;
well my opinion is expressed in this thread [1]:

        The only question for inclusion or not is about the license, IMHO.  For
        sure, it is far better if we are able to recompute the weights.
        However, similarly as debootstrapping is a strong recommendation, the
        ability to recompute the pre-trained neural network weights must just be
        a recommendation.

where “neural network weights” reads in this case “binary descriptors”.

We need to do our best for reducing at most the “opacity” but the
criteria for inclusion is about the license and not about our resource
for bootstrapping all from bare-metal.  To be precise, we are accepting
to “cheat” for some compilers as GHC or Chicken.  From my point of view,
the case of Chicken is very similar to these “descriptors”, no?

Similarly, many packages use Autotools files generated by upstream and
we do not regenerate all of them.  Because that’s not the criteria for
inclusion.  The criteria is about the license, whatever if we speak
about human-readable source code, non human-readable source code, or any
other data.

1: https://yhetil.org/guix/87wn0qrmdx.fsf@gmail.com/#r
2: https://issues.guix.gnu.org/issue/22366

Cheers,
simon