Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Free Lossless Image Format

flif.info

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 374 posts

Re: Free Lossless Image Format

#91

Post by skrause »

pmelendez wrote: post #33
raving-richard wrote: post #14

Earlier 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…

> Because it is GPL3, it won't be supported by Google on Android, by Apple probably anywhere, or by Microsoft anywhere. Why not? As far as I know, GPL3 let you to dinamically link without having to open the source code the resulting software.

You can't link proprietary software with GPL libraries, only with LGPL libraries.

For but Apple it's not even a licensing concern. Apple doesn't have a problem with the GPLv2, but doesn't touch the GPLv3 because of the patent clauses that it contains. The bash in OS X is a version from 2007 because that's the last GPLv2 version of bash. But Apple has no problem including git because that's also GPLv2 and not v3.

Re: Free Lossless Image Format

#92

Post by colanderman »

rplnt wrote: post #75
iraphael wrote: post #23

This is really interesting. One of the most interesting parts is the progressive decoding/responsive images. http://flif.info/example.php (go to the bottom of the page). Basically, the last example shows that, if you want a scaled version of the image, you can simply stop decompressing. No need for multiple image files. Just create one with very high quality and decompress until you get the quality you want and scale…

This would be great. A lot of "responsive" sites nowadays use only one image as well, the highest resolution available. So you are downloading that 4K jpeg whether you are on mobile or on a desktop.

Progressive JPEG has supported this for decades. Anyone over 25 should remember them from dial-up years.

Re: Free Lossless Image Format

#93

Post by ekianjo »

lt wrote: post #6

This is really interesting! There seems to be some additional technical information here: https://boards.openpandora.org/topic/18485-free-lossless-ima... - for interlacing it uses a generalization of PNG's Adam7; unlike PNG, the geometry of the 2D interlacing is exploited heavily to get better pixel estimation, which means the overhead of interlacing is small (vs simple scanline encoding, which has the benefit of loc…

I posted the news of this new file format weeks ago on HN, no one picked it up :P

Re: Free Lossless Image Format

#94

Post by robert_foss »

An interesting aspect that has not been mentioned on flif.info nor here, is the implementability on silicon.

How many transistors would be needed for and encoder? How about a decoder or a codec (encoder/decoder)? And what about clock speed? How long is the longest pipeline in the codec?

For any other modern codec the hardware aspect is a very important one. Usecases like smartphone browsers or smartwatches are very common, and on platforms like that performance==battery life==usefulness.

Re: Free Lossless Image Format

#95

Post by dspillett »

versteegen wrote: post #37
lt wrote: post #31

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)

I think it has more to do with maintain control initially.

It is a lot easier to restrict now and liberalise later once more thought has been given to the options, than it is to draw things back in later if you decide you want more control for any reason.

Re: Free Lossless Image Format

#96

Post by skrause »

davexunit wrote: post #45
aaronharnly wrote: post #25

Earlier 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.

A while ago I wanted to include a library in some GPLv3 software, but I couldn't because that library was GPL2-only with no "or any later version" clause. And both versions of the GPL are not compatible unless the GPL2 software has this "or any later version" clause.

So even if you stay strictly within the free software universe, even only within in GPL universe, a strong-copyleft license is a bad choice for a library.

Re: Free Lossless Image Format

#97

Post by bostonpete »

rhaps0dy wrote: post #81
fijal wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you don't have to use the code, you can (and probably want to) implement the code yourself.

Why do you really want to duplicate work and write, test, debug, maintain... a FLIF decoder yourself? Also, I'm not sure how far do you have to deviate from the original code to not be covered by its license.

Technically, I believe the answer is 100%. If you're using the original code as a starting point or a reference for your code, then you're basically creating a derivative work.

Re: Free Lossless Image Format

#98

Post by zanny »

lucian1900 wrote: post #57
digi_owl wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GPLv3 will be a hard sell...

In fact, it makes it impossible to use in practice. None of the major browsers are GPLv3.

The GPL is compatible with BSD, MPL, and MIT licenses that Firefox / Chromium use.

The problem is more that Firefox / Chrome ship proprietary bits like the DRM modules that would violate the linking GPL coverage of flif. And that Chrome is proprietary.

Its going to need to be relicensed LGPL to be included.

Re: Free Lossless Image Format

#99

Post by skrause »

ebbv wrote: post #87
emergentcypher wrote: post #65

Why all the hate for GPLv3?

The HN crowd tends to be a bit more money oriented than some of us older coders.

So you're saying that for example the FreeBSD people are money oriented because they prefer a more permissive license over the GPL?
Post reply on HN