GNU bug report logs - #63531
[PATCH] View DICOM and Sixel images using image-convert

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 63531 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 63531 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Antero Mejr <antero <at> mailbox.org>
To: bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
Subject: [PATCH] View DICOM and Sixel images using image-convert
Date: Mon, 15 May 2023 23:30:13 +0000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

These patches add .dcm and .six to auto-mode-alist, so they can be
viewed with image-convert. The Six patch also adds SIX as an ImageMagick
type.

[0001-Allow-viewing-.six-images-via-image-convert.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

[0002-Allow-viewing-.dcm-images-via-image-convert.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

Message #8 received at 63531 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Antero Mejr <antero <at> mailbox.org>
Cc: 63531 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#63531: [PATCH] View DICOM and Sixel images using image-convert
Date: Tue, 16 May 2023 19:23:41 +0300

> Date: Mon, 15 May 2023 23:30:13 +0000
> From:  Antero Mejr via "Bug reports for GNU Emacs,
>  the Swiss army knife of text editors" <bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org>
> 
> These patches add .dcm and .six to auto-mode-alist, so they can be
> viewed with image-convert. The Six patch also adds SIX as an ImageMagick
> type.

Do we want to include their support in Emacs?  AFAIU, these aren't
free formats.  And since supporting them boils down to customizing
auto-mode-alist, why cannot users do that themselves?

Message #11 received at 63531 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Antero Mejr <antero <at> mailbox.org>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 63531 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#63531: [PATCH] View DICOM and Sixel images using image-convert
Date: Tue, 16 May 2023 17:38:06 +0000

Antero Mejr <antero <at> mailbox.org> writes:

> Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:
>
>>> Date: Mon, 15 May 2023 23:30:13 +0000
>>> From:  Antero Mejr via "Bug reports for GNU Emacs,
>>>  the Swiss army knife of text editors" <bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org>
>>> 
>>> These patches add .dcm and .six to auto-mode-alist, so they can be
>>> viewed with image-convert. The Six patch also adds SIX as an ImageMagick
>>> type.
>>
>> Do we want to include their support in Emacs?  AFAIU, these aren't
>> free formats.
>
> I'm not an lawyer but to the best of my knowledge neither format has any
> sort of licensing, trademark, or patent encumberances.
>
> DICOM is free to implement and view without licenses. The specification
> is available online but the spec itself is copyright of NEMA. It's a
> metadata wrapper over JPEG mainly.
>
> I think the Sixel "format" is more of a simple convention than a formal
> specification with licenses, patents, etc. Implementations use the DEC
> VT330 manual as a "spec" I guess.
>
>> And since supporting them boils down to customizing
>> auto-mode-alist, why cannot users do that themselves?
>
> For usability I think it's good for things to (mostly) work out of the
> box.

Forgot to CC the mailing list, sorry.

Message #16 received at 63531 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Stefan Kangas <stefankangas <at> gmail.com>
To: Antero Mejr <antero <at> mailbox.org>, Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 63531 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#63531: [PATCH] View DICOM and Sixel images using image-convert
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2023 11:36:44 -0700

Antero Mejr via "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text
editors" <bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org> writes:

>>> These patches add .dcm and .six to auto-mode-alist, so they can be
>>> viewed with image-convert. The Six patch also adds SIX as an ImageMagick
>>> type.
>>
>> Do we want to include their support in Emacs?  AFAIU, these aren't
>> free formats.
>
> I'm not an lawyer but to the best of my knowledge neither format has any
> sort of licensing, trademark, or patent encumberances.
>
> DICOM is free to implement and view without licenses. The specification
> is available online but the spec itself is copyright of NEMA. It's a
> metadata wrapper over JPEG mainly.
>
> I think the Sixel "format" is more of a simple convention than a formal
> specification with licenses, patents, etc. Implementations use the DEC
> VT330 manual as a "spec" I guess.
>
>> And since supporting them boils down to customizing
>> auto-mode-alist, why cannot users do that themselves?
>
> For usability I think it's good for things to (mostly) work out of the
> box.

Since these formats are not encumbered by patents and so on, I don't see
any reason why we can't support them.  It's always nice if stuff like
that works OOTB.

So I think we should install these patches.

Message #19 received at 63531 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Antero Mejr <antero <at> mailbox.org>
To: Stefan Kangas <stefankangas <at> gmail.com>
Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>, 63531 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#63531: [PATCH] View DICOM and Sixel images using image-convert
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2023 17:06:52 +0000

Stefan Kangas <stefankangas <at> gmail.com> writes:

> Since these formats are not encumbered by patents and so on, I don't see
> any reason why we can't support them.  It's always nice if stuff like
> that works OOTB.
>
> So I think we should install these patches.

I agree, both are popular formats so it would be good to support them.
I did another check regarding the licenses, hopefully it will address
the previous concerns.

The DICOM standard committee website explicitly states:
"No license is required to download or implement the DICOM Standard."
https://www.dicomstandard.org/patent

For Sixel, we already use the DEC VTxxx manuals for terminal emulation,
see the "References" comment on line 2975 of term.el. The Sixel file
format reference comes from the same sources.

Thanks,
Antero

Message #22 received at 63531 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Daniel Mendler <mail <at> daniel-mendler.de>
To: Antero Mejr <antero <at> mailbox.org>
Cc: 63531 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#63531: [PATCH] View DICOM and Sixel images using image-convert
Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2024 14:28:07 +0100

Antero Mejr <antero <at> mailbox.org> writes:

> Stefan Kangas <stefankangas <at> gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Since these formats are not encumbered by patents and so on, I don't see
>> any reason why we can't support them.  It's always nice if stuff like
>> that works OOTB.
>>
>> So I think we should install these patches.
>
> I agree, both are popular formats so it would be good to support them.
> I did another check regarding the licenses, hopefully it will address
> the previous concerns.
>
> The DICOM standard committee website explicitly states:
> "No license is required to download or implement the DICOM Standard."
> https://www.dicomstandard.org/patent
>
> For Sixel, we already use the DEC VTxxx manuals for terminal emulation,
> see the "References" comment on line 2975 of term.el. The Sixel file
> format reference comes from the same sources.

I implemented the small dicom package which is available from GNU ELPA.
It can display DICOM images, leveraging the programs convert from
ImageMagick and dcm2xml from the dcmtk DICOM toolkit.

Daniel

Message #27 received at 63531-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Stefan Kangas <stefankangas <at> gmail.com>
To: Antero Mejr <antero <at> mailbox.org>
Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>, 63531-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#63531: [PATCH] View DICOM and Sixel images using image-convert
Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2024 03:07:00 +0000

Version: 31.1

Antero Mejr <antero <at> mailbox.org> writes:

> Stefan Kangas <stefankangas <at> gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Since these formats are not encumbered by patents and so on, I don't see
>> any reason why we can't support them.  It's always nice if stuff like
>> that works OOTB.
>>
>> So I think we should install these patches.
>
> I agree, both are popular formats so it would be good to support them.
> I did another check regarding the licenses, hopefully it will address
> the previous concerns.
>
> The DICOM standard committee website explicitly states:
> "No license is required to download or implement the DICOM Standard."
> https://www.dicomstandard.org/patent
>
> For Sixel, we already use the DEC VTxxx manuals for terminal emulation,
> see the "References" comment on line 2975 of term.el. The Sixel file
> format reference comes from the same sources.

Now installed on master.  Thanks!

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.