It would be nice to have a comparison with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG_XR
Free Lossless Image Format
51–60 of 374 posts
Re: Free Lossless Image Format
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because it is GPL3, it won't be supported by Google on Android, by Apple probably anywhere, or by Microsoft anywhere. In other words, it's a lovely idea, but due to a poor choice of license, it won't get any adoption. C.f. Ogg Vorbis, where the license for the specification is public domain, and the license for the libraries are BSD-like. To quote FSF: Some libraries implement free standards that are competing agains…
That's only the implementation, not the image format itself. Unless I am mistaking, you can't apply a software license like GPL to an image format, just patent it. Is that correct?
You're correct. There is no copyright for ideas, and licenses are just a way to "relax" your copyright. Unless it's patented you are free to make your own implementation of the format without any restrictions.
Re: Free Lossless Image Format
#53The most solid feature is lossless responsiveness. Stopping the download gives you a lower-resolution image. When scaled, the image then becomes lossy.
Here is a thorough analysis of how good that lossy image is: http://flif.info/example.php
It shows how very good lossy BPG is, but also how good FLIF is against anything but BPG (and against lossless BPG).
Re: Free Lossless Image Format
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
Makes me think of the web of old, where sometimes an image would load in multiple passes.
I assume you're talking about progressive JPEGs. These are still fairly common in my experience. It's just that with today's typical connection speed, you'll rarely notice.
There's also progressive PNGs. Progressive JPEGs have the advantage that they increase compression ratio (though they're more expensive to decode, as you need multiple passes and refresh)
Re: Free Lossless Image Format
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wow, starting with an unusable license with the intention to switch to a more practical one later is a weird strategy. I guess that's one way to discourage people from adopting it before it's ready. (Edit: As I clarified, I meant usable for adoption in other non-GPL projects. But OK, I deserve the downvotes for adding very little, and will think twice before posting such a reply next time)
> Wow, starting with an unusable license If you want to use it commercially without publishing source, just buy a licence from the author. Buying licences isn't exactly uncommon. Or are OS X/iOS/Windows also unusable for you?
The author claims it to be royalty free. Also commercial "standards" by one party are worthless
Re: Free Lossless Image Format
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wow, starting with an unusable license with the intention to switch to a more practical one later is a weird strategy. I guess that's one way to discourage people from adopting it before it's ready. (Edit: As I clarified, I meant usable for adoption in other non-GPL projects. But OK, I deserve the downvotes for adding very little, and will think twice before posting such a reply next time)
>unusable license Pure bullshit. Unusable for whom? Proprietary software developers? That's the intent.
Except... how does a new image format work in modern browsers? It gets included in Chrome, IE, Safari, and Firefox.
Apple and Google won't touch GPLv3, so that means this image format is dead on arrival as a web format.
Sure you can use it locally to compress your photographs, cool. But it won't be a web standard with GPLv3.
Re: Free Lossless Image Format
#57Wow! Higher compression than any other format, full transparency support, progressive/partial loading AND animations?! I can't wait for this to get widespread adoption! Github repo here btw: https://github.com/jonsneyers/FLIF
GPLv3 will be a hard sell...
In fact, it makes it impossible to use in practice. None of the major browsers are GPLv3.
Re: Free Lossless Image Format
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wow, starting with an unusable license with the intention to switch to a more practical one later is a weird strategy. I guess that's one way to discourage people from adopting it before it's ready. (Edit: As I clarified, I meant usable for adoption in other non-GPL projects. But OK, I deserve the downvotes for adding very little, and will think twice before posting such a reply next time)
>unusable license Pure bullshit. Unusable for whom? Proprietary software developers? That's the intent.
Not really propriety software - as you & bildung said, it's not a problem if you can just buy a license. I meant anyone working on FLOSS software that isn't GPL compatible, which is probably most FLOSS software. MIT, BSD, etc are very popular these days. And image formats are generally intended to be widely-adopted standards used across different applications.
Re: Free Lossless Image Format
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agree – using GPL rather than LGPL or BSD in the reference implementation will prevent this from being widely adopted. UPDATE: See lt's helpful comment above.
So, the free world can use this library and the proprietary world will have to develop their own if they want to use the format. Proprietary software developers get to piggy back off of tons of free software, and then when someone decides that they don't want to enable that for their particular program/library, people complain about it. It makes no sense.
I think license depends on your goal. If your goal is to create a web image format.. you need all the browsers to agree to include you. All browsers will not add a GPLv3 image type. Therefore it is dead before it launched.
Re: Free Lossless Image Format
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wow, starting with an unusable license with the intention to switch to a more practical one later is a weird strategy. I guess that's one way to discourage people from adopting it before it's ready. (Edit: As I clarified, I meant usable for adoption in other non-GPL projects. But OK, I deserve the downvotes for adding very little, and will think twice before posting such a reply next time)
>unusable license Pure bullshit. Unusable for whom? Proprietary software developers? That's the intent.
Or any open source project that is not GPLv3, like Firefox.