A build script for a particular distro would probably be safer, patent-wise. CentOS/RHEL/Fedora do not include the patent-encumbered EC-DSA codes from OpenSSL, and anyone using bitcoin requires that. Therefore, anyone providing builds is providing patent-encumbered software.
IANAL, but apparently, distributing source code or build scripts puts you in a far better position than distributing ready-to-use binary software.
Remember that Certicom's patent claim pertaining to ECDSA is still just a claim. I haven't seen anything that established them ownership of it since they filed back in 1999 and everything freaked out, but if anyone has an links to some hard court cases, that would be great.
Otherwise, I wouldn't worry about it because since then, a lot of the world governments and big business already use this. I don't know how well they would stand in a lawsuit against the entire planet?
Big business (Red Hat, IBM, maybe Novell too?) has spent Big Money hiring Real Lawyers, who determined that openssl's EC and EC-DSA support should not be distributed due to patent worries.
Red Hat and IBM have done extensive work and spent millions of dollars
clearing a lot of open source code of patent worries, using a combination of lawyer review and patent pooling. If, after all that, they advise against using something -- I am going to listen.