281–290 of 374 posts
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...
To clarify: at the moment FLIF is licensed under the GPL v3+. Once the format is finalized, the next logical step would be to make a library version of it, which will be most probably get licensed under the LGPL v3+, or maybe something even more permissive. There is not much point in doing that when the format is not yet stable. It's not because FLIF is GPL v3+ now, that we can't add more permissive licenses later. A…
BSD/MIT, or ASL2 are pretty much the standard if you want to see something as widely used as possible, which this sounds like might be the case. Cool work in any case! One thing the page could use is "how much processing power does this use, compared to other things?"
Without a BSD/MIT/ASL2 license as an option, you'll never see this in Internet Explorer or Chrome. Probably not even Firefox.
[1] Companies license patents in bulk from other companies for their own use all the time. They don't have the right to sublicense those patents to others; they're just protected against any lawsuits relevant to the use of the ideas in those patents. Yet GPLv3 requires that they provide a free license to any patent that they have a license to that might be required to use GPLv3 source code. So it's requiring them to do something they legally can't do. Selecting GPLv3 means that no large company will ever touch it as a result.
They claim this is good for responsive images: The download or file read operations can be stopped as soon as sufficient detail is available, and if needed, it can be resumed when for whatever reason more detail is needed. -- http://flif.info/responsive.php Unfortunately that's not how HTTP works. Your browser opens several connections to a website, and makes requests for resources. Each connection is in use until th…
Why do you say it is a net loss? Maybe the server could signal the end of file based on some request parameters (the resolution of the image).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> The GPL is compatible with BSD, MPL, and MIT licenses that Firefox / Chromium use. Yes, it is compatible, the other way around. You can take BSD, MPL, MIT code and adopt it into a GPL project, not the other way around. EDIT: Even LGPL won't work here as it will prevent use on Windows Phone, iOS and Android.
LGPL code is everywhere in Android and iOS. There are numerous apps built on GStreamer for both platforms, which is LGPL.
I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft pulled the pig-headed move though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I haven't checked, but I suspect that a better down scaling method can be used while still being compatible with the same decoding algorithm.
hmm, how could it be? The pixels values have to fit into the eventual reconstructed image. If the values were different than any pixels found in the final image, it wouldn't be progressively loading, it would have several different size images embedded in it.
Between Brotli and FLIF, which is good enough?
Brotli is excellent at text and does a great job at compressing overall, but FLIF is written directly to excel at lossless image compression, hence FLIF will be much better unless it's a really poor solution (which results show it's certainly not). Likewise Brotli will not beat FLAC at compressing audio, since FLAC is specifically written to do that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Firefox is GPLv3 compatible. It's quite likely that it will support this format - although, if it's the only major browser doing so, it will not be adopted by most web publishers.
I would be very surprised if Firefox added support. They have been very reluctant to include any additional image formats that weren't developed by Mozilla employees. See for example WebP and Jpeg2000. Their reasons being things like added security risk, lack of demand, lack of support in other browsers, patent risk etc, which all apply just as much to this format.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd call that "grayscale" rather than black and white, but interesting suggestion. I've never seen it done but looks like all sorts of things are possible: http://hodapple.com/blag/2011/11/24/obscure-features-of-jpeg...
Here's the Mandrill test image from SIPI and Utah as a 75% progressive JPEG with just the first scan of the most significant bit of just the DC for Y only, which is a totally expected scheme for the web back in the '90s: https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-4tX6mfFoY4c/Vg7bg85RwcI/A...
To clarify: at the moment FLIF is licensed under the GPL v3+. Once the format is finalized, the next logical step would be to make a library version of it, which will be most probably get licensed under the LGPL v3+, or maybe something even more permissive. There is not much point in doing that when the format is not yet stable. It's not because FLIF is GPL v3+ now, that we can't add more permissive licenses later. A…
You're of course free to choose whatever license you believe is appropriate for your project, but I can almost guarantee that your project will not see widespread adoption if GPL or copyleft licensing is the only available implementation. Game development projects, in particular, will avoid it, as will almost anything that wants to publish an application to the Apple App Store or Google Play. You may wish to consider…
"Once the format is finalized, the next logical step would be to make a library version of it, which will be most probably get licensed under the LGPL v3+"
To clarify: at the moment FLIF is licensed under the GPL v3+. Once the format is finalized, the next logical step would be to make a library version of it, which will be most probably get licensed under the LGPL v3+, or maybe something even more permissive. There is not much point in doing that when the format is not yet stable. It's not because FLIF is GPL v3+ now, that we can't add more permissive licenses later. A…
That's only guaranteed if you obtain copyright assignment from any contributors now. Otherwise, re-licensing will be a massive headache as you'll need to track down all the copyright holders for permission. Some might refuse or have have dropped off the map.