81–90 of 374 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
GPLv3 will be a hard sell...
you don't have to use the code, you can (and probably want to) implement the code yourself.
Also, I'm not sure how far do you have to deviate from the original code to not be covered by its license.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the forum thread I linked elsewhere, the author wrote: "In terms of licenses: GPL is all you get for now. I can always add more liberal licenses later. LGPL for a decoding library, or maybe even MIT? We'll see, I'm not in a hurry." https://boards.openpandora.org/topic/18485-free-lossless-ima...
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)
Why all the hate for GPLv3?
Sharing code is no longer cool if people have to share back. Or at least so it seems. The GPL-hate in here really is quite immense, even though time and time again, RMS has been shown to be right about his stance on freedom. Should we attribute it to people's desire for a quick ("free") fix over long term considerations? It's hard to tell, but I suspect the silicon valley influence here doesn't help. There everyone w…
There are plenty of licenses which require/encourage that. The problem with GPL is that everything that touches the GPL code has to become GPL or compatible.
Adobe for example will never put this in Photoshop, or Microsoft in Internet Explorer, as they do not want to GPL their software. Net result is no wide support for this image format, which is a net loss compared to a e.g. LGPL/MPL scenario where companies could do that but still would have to contribute to the library if they made any changes/improvements.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It also claims to beat the lossy version, which cannot even be encoded for the transparent fish image at the tested file sizes: http://flif.info/example.php [ed. image size → file size to emphasize that they had a target byte count for the purpose of comparison]
JPEG 2000 is capable of compressing 1969x1307 images without issues. I work with JPEG 2000 codecs every day. It is commonly used in Virtual Microscopy with images in the tens of gigabytes as well as with small 256x256 MRI. I don't know why the author does not present "JPEG 2000 at this size". Edit: I was confused since with most coders you can specify precise mean squared error optimal truncation points (called quali…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It also claims to beat the lossy version, which cannot even be encoded for the transparent fish image at the tested file sizes: http://flif.info/example.php [ed. image size → file size to emphasize that they had a target byte count for the purpose of comparison]
JPEG 2000 is capable of compressing 1969x1307 images without issues. I work with JPEG 2000 codecs every day. It is commonly used in Virtual Microscopy with images in the tens of gigabytes as well as with small 256x256 MRI. I don't know why the author does not present "JPEG 2000 at this size". Edit: I was confused since with most coders you can specify precise mean squared error optimal truncation points (called quali…
Why all the hate for GPLv3?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sharing code is no longer cool if people have to share back. Or at least so it seems. The GPL-hate in here really is quite immense, even though time and time again, RMS has been shown to be right about his stance on freedom. Should we attribute it to people's desire for a quick ("free") fix over long term considerations? It's hard to tell, but I suspect the silicon valley influence here doesn't help. There everyone w…
As someone who made a negative comment about the GPL elsewhere in this thread, I think I'll comment. I have absolutely nothing against the GPL, and use it myself. However, using the GPL for a library seems like a bad idea, because there are a lot of people, especially at companies, which won't touch the GPL. So if you license a library GPL and it's useful someone is just going to come along and reimplement it with a…
I don't agree with corporate apologeticism which seems to be the norm here. If a company wants get something for free, expecting it to publish source code changes is not an actually high threshold. It might be in terms of corporate politics, but in actuality it is not hard.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sharing code is no longer cool if people have to share back. Or at least so it seems. The GPL-hate in here really is quite immense, even though time and time again, RMS has been shown to be right about his stance on freedom. Should we attribute it to people's desire for a quick ("free") fix over long term considerations? It's hard to tell, but I suspect the silicon valley influence here doesn't help. There everyone w…
As someone who made a negative comment about the GPL elsewhere in this thread, I think I'll comment. I have absolutely nothing against the GPL, and use it myself. However, using the GPL for a library seems like a bad idea, because there are a lot of people, especially at companies, which won't touch the GPL. So if you license a library GPL and it's useful someone is just going to come along and reimplement it with a…
Wow! 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...