Coffeehouse Thread

46 posts

Forum Read Only

This forum has been made read only by the site admins. No new threads or comments can be added.

The JPEG group approved HD Photo as a new standard

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    Tom Servo

    Usually, there's a reference implementation available from JPEG themselves. Microsoft shouldn't have a say over what license it'll have.

  • User profile image
    AndyC

    TimP wrote:
    

    You can use our implementation as long as you don't use it in GPL software.


    That's an inherent flaw in the GPL. lf they allowed the reference implementation to be GPL, it may prevent others from using it in non-free projects.

  • User profile image
    W3bbo

    AndyC wrote:
    
    TimP wrote:
    

    You can use our implementation as long as you don't use it in GPL software.


    That's an inherent flaw in the GPL. lf they allowed the reference implementation to be GPL, it may prevent others from using it in non-free projects.


    Why couldn't they just BSD it? That's what it's there for....

  • User profile image
    esoteric

    At last a new and improved version of JPEG that looks like it may get widespread support.

  • User profile image
    AndyC

    W3bbo wrote:
    
    Why couldn't they just BSD it? That's what it's there for....

    The problem with BSD is that it can then be GPL'd, at which point you are back to the original problem.

  • User profile image
    YearOfThe​LinuxDesktop

    Xaero_Vincent wrote:
    But will it be a fully platform independent standard like JPEG-2000?


    no, the photos will remain on the camera however you will be able to send them to other cameras that will be able to view them for 3 times or 3 days, whichever comes first Perplexed

    did I also mention that those cameras instead of removing red-eyes will amplify them having everybody look as being possessed by the devil?Sad

    waaahhh!!!! Expressionless

  • User profile image
    AndyC

    creditcard wrote:
    
    What is the orginal problem?


    1. Code is released under non-GPL license
    2. Code gets GPL'd
    3. Bug is found
    4. Patch is released under GPL
    5. Original code now has to be patched in a different (and thus potentially less optimal) way for original license to avoid GPL copyright issues.
    6. Repeat from step 2
  • User profile image
    W3bbo

    AndyC wrote:
    

    creditcard wrote:
    
    What is the orginal problem?


    1. Code is released under non-GPL license
    2. Code gets GPL'd
    3. Bug is found
    4. Patch is released under GPL
    5. Original code now has to be patched in a different (and thus potentially less optimal) way for original license to avoid GPL copyright issues.
    6. Repeat from step 2


    If code is BSD'd, what makes you think it will be GPL'd?

    The GPL is more restrictive than the BSD, and the original code authors are not obligated to implement patches at all.

  • User profile image
    AndyC

    W3bbo wrote:
    
    If code is BSD'd, what makes you think it will be GPL'd?

    The GPL is more restrictive than the BSD, and the original code authors are not obligated to implement patches at all.


    Because someone can.

    It only takes one person to include it in a GPL project and then you're stuck.

  • User profile image
    Cannot​Resolve​Symbol

    AndyC wrote:
    
    TimP wrote:
    

    You can use our implementation as long as you don't use it in GPL software.


    That's an inherent flaw in the GPL. lf they allowed the reference implementation to be GPL, it may prevent others from using it in non-free projects.


    Isn't that what LGPL is for?

  • User profile image
    Royal​Schrubber

    creditcard wrote:
    Microsoft so far is the only company or entity I've seen that releases software with these anti-copyleft restrictions. And people wonder why people hate Microsoft so much. Plus, it is a major reason why HD Photo will fail. Firefox is distributed under a copyleft license.


    What about Sun? A lot of their software is open source but incompatible with GPL/LGPL. CDDL(Common Development and Distribution License) and MPL(Mozilla Public License) both allow you to reuse code in project licensed under different license, but are incompatible with GPLed software. Perfect to fight GNUs. Smiley

  • User profile image
    Xaero_​Vincent

    If an LGPL version of the spec is produced, everything will be fine. If not, someone will just write another JPEG XR library with a different, commercial-friendly license.

  • User profile image
    AndyC

    CannotResolveSymbol wrote:
    
    Isn't that what LGPL is for?


    Maybe. But you can't stop someone making LGPL code GPL. The whole nature of to GPL is such that all "compatible" licenses allow their code to become GPL instead (and then have to stay that way). It's why people have used the word "viral" to describe it at various times.

  • User profile image
    AndyC

    Xaero_Vincent wrote:
    If an LGPL version of the spec is produced, everything will be fine. If not, someone will just write another JPEG XR library with a different, commercial-friendly license.

    The spec is just a spec, you can do with it as you wish. It's just the provided reference implementation that cannot be GPL'd. I'm sure someone will write a GPL implementation at some point.

  • User profile image
    Escamillo

    creditcard wrote:
    
    AndyC wrote:
    

    creditcard wrote:
    
    What is the orginal problem?


    1. Code is released under non-GPL license
    2. Code gets GPL'd
    3. Bug is found
    4. Patch is released under GPL
    5. Original code now has to be patched in a different (and thus potentially less optimal) way for original license to avoid GPL copyright issues.
    6. Repeat from step 2


    Copyright typically covers the specific implementation and not how it was implemented. What you are thinking of is patents.

    Microsoft so far is the only company or entity I've seen that releases software with these anti-copyleft restrictions. And people wonder why people hate Microsoft so much. Plus, it is a major reason why HD Photo will fail. Firefox and Safari (Webkit) are distributed under a copyleft license.


    Huh?
    The only ones that "hate Microsoft" for not releasing GPL-compatible code are the wackos that worship GPL as the one license to rule them all. 

    Why don't you address the scenario that was put forward above?
    Let's say that Microsoft's HD Photo implementation is released under a GPL-compatible fashion, someone  GPLs the code, a bug is found, a fix is made in GPL code.  Then the original code could not be fixed optimally if it is to be used by those that don't want anything to do with GPL.  Microsoft couldn't even use an optimally fixed version of its own code in their own products.

    You wackos are so damn hypocritical.  You promote the GPL as a way to prevent "evil" closed source companies from appropriating code, enhancing it for their own purposes, releasing products based on the enhancements for use by the public, but not releasing the enhancements back to the "community" right?

    But your solution is to promote a license (GPL) by which bug fixes and enhancements cannot be used by anyone that doesn't GPL their entire software stack.  You don't release your enhancements to the non-GPL world, even if the original code came from a non-GPL source.  Your self-righteousness blinds you to your selfishness and  hypocrisy.  And then you have the gall to complain whenever anyone doesn't want to jump through GPL's hoops.

    I've almost never flamed anyone on this site, but I am so sick of the holier-than-thou, gimmee, gimmee, gimmee spoiled brat attitude of your kind.  The spec is open, so implement it your own damn self.  You guys think you're God's gift to programming anyway, so you shouldn't need Microsoft's code at all.

  • User profile image
    AndyC

    creditcard wrote:
    

    Copyright typically covers the specific implementation and not how it was implemented. What you are thinking of is patents.


    Um, no. I'm well aware of the difference. We're talking here about a specific Microsoft provided implementation, not the spec as a whole.

    creditcard wrote:
    
    Microsoft so far is the only company or entity I've seen that releases software with these anti-copyleft restrictions. And people wonder why people hate Microsoft so much. Plus, it is a major reason why HD Photo will fail. Firefox and Safari (Webkit) are distributed under a copyleft license.


    Except it is under a copyleft license. It's just not a GPL compatible one because, quite frankly, nothing but the GPL is entirely compatible with the GPL.

  • User profile image
    feelite

    i've been doing a paper on JPEG XR (previously known as Windows Media Photo and then HD Photo)

    Apparently, the graphic quality is not as good as JPEG 2000 at very high compression. The performance (in terms of compression time) is only slightly better than JPEG 2000.

    You can read the full paper (in draft) here (hosted at Skydrive). You can skip to section 3 for the evaluation part.

    Do let me know your comments or any independent testing numbers.



  • User profile image
    AndyC

    creditcard wrote:

    AndyC seems to be worried that someone would fork the library as a GPL library and make it better then Microsoft's own implementation. However one thing he is missing is that someone could make a GPL implementation and it could very well be better then Microsoft's implementation using the specs. I guess Microsoft missed an important loophole.


    Ok, so you still don't get it. Let's try again:

    If a reference implementation falls under a GPL license it becomes unusable to anyone not using the GPL. This makes it useless as a reference implementation.

    Hence it needs to be protected against that and released under a more permissive license. Which is what Microsoft have done.

Conversation locked

This conversation has been locked by the site admins. No new comments can be made.