4 ms·

>unusable license Pure bullshit. Unusable for whom? Proprietary software developers? That's the intent.

brianwawok 11y ago
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.
- kuschku 11y ago
  Well, we could just get everyone to use Firefox, and this image format will be a web standard. Google is currently using webp everywhere, too, despite no major browser actually supporting webp. (I do not consider Chrome a browser, but mal- and spyware)
versteegen 11y ago
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.
- yarrel 11y ago
  Most "FLOSS" software is GPL. Almost all is GPL compatible. But even the FSF recommend sometimes using don't-care-about-user-freedom licenses for strategic reasons, for example driving adoption of a new free codec...
lucian1900 11y ago
Or any open source project that is not GPLv3, like Firefox.
- TuringTest 11y ago
  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.
  - anon1385 11y ago
    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.
    - MichaelGG 11y ago
      Hopefully adopting Rust code will eliminate the security risk for such decisions.
  - legulere 11y ago
    The Mozilla Public License is GPLv3 compatible. Firefox also contains code that is under different licenses that is not GPLv3 compatible, and thus firefox is not GPLv3 compatible
VMG 11y ago
You agreeing with the intent does not negate the effect.

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.

kuschku 11y ago
Well, we could just get everyone to use Firefox, and this image format will be a web standard. Google is currently using webp everywhere, too, despite no major browser actually supporting webp. (I do not consider Chrome a browser, but mal- and spyware)

versteegen 11y ago

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.

yarrel 11y ago
Most "FLOSS" software is GPL. Almost all is GPL compatible. But even the FSF recommend sometimes using don't-care-about-user-freedom licenses for strategic reasons, for example driving adoption of a new free codec...

lucian1900 11y ago

Or any open source project that is not GPLv3, like Firefox.

TuringTest 11y ago
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.
- anon1385 11y ago
  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.
  - MichaelGG 11y ago
    Hopefully adopting Rust code will eliminate the security risk for such decisions.
- legulere 11y ago
  The Mozilla Public License is GPLv3 compatible. Firefox also contains code that is under different licenses that is not GPLv3 compatible, and thus firefox is not GPLv3 compatible

VMG 11y ago

You agreeing with the intent does not negate the effect.