4 ms·

No kidding. If you want an image format to become widely adopted and standardized, GPLing the code is a pretty bad idea.

by jblow 11y ago

Aldo_MX 11y ago
Not just an image format, everything you want to become widely adopted and standardized should refrain from using the GPL, even the FSF[1] recommends using the Apache License in this specific case. Some libraries implement free standards that are competing against restricted standards, such as Ogg Vorbis (which competes against MP3 audio) and WebM (which competes against MPEG-4 video). For these projects, widespread use of the code is vital for advancing the cause of free software, and does more good than a copyleft on the project's code would do. In these special situations, we recommend the Apache License 2.0. [1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.html
- bloody_pretzels 11y ago
  Note that the Apache License isn't compatible with GPLv2. If you don't make use of any patents use BSD/MIT/ISC instead. Sadly there isn't a real alternative permissive license with a patent clause. There is a license called COIL[1], but it hasn't seen much adoption yet. [1] http://coil.apotheon.org/ http://coil.apotheon.org/
  - Aldo_MX 11y ago
    Nothing that a dual license GPL/APL wouldn't solve.
andrepd 11y ago
I think it's great to have a free software solution which wholly eclipses the competition. It's an incentive to use free software (use free software and get the best image codec in the world).
- breadbox 11y ago
  Yes, but the technology of "storing images" is never going to become the domain of free software. It's a little late for that. If you're trying to drive widespread adoption of a competing file format, then don't GPL the only code that implements it. Make a brain-dead reference implementation with a license as unencumbered as you can stand. (Then code up an elegant implementation and GPL that.)
InclinedPlane 11y ago
He intends to make the spec public as well as to switch to a more permissive license once the format has stabilized, so I wouldn't be too concerned yet.

No kidding. If you want an image format to become widely adopted and standardized, GPLing the code is a pretty bad idea.

by jblow 11y ago

No kidding. If you want an image format to become widely adopted and standardized, GPLing the code is a pretty bad idea.

Aldo_MX 11y ago

Not just an image format, everything you want to become widely adopted and standardized should refrain from using the GPL, even the FSF[1] recommends using the Apache License in this specific case. Some libraries implement free standards that are competing against restricted standards, such as Ogg Vorbis (which competes against MP3 audio) and WebM (which competes against MPEG-4 video). For these projects, widespread use of the code is vital for advancing the cause of free software, and does more good than a copyleft on the project's code would do. In these special situations, we recommend the Apache License 2.0. [1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.html

bloody_pretzels 11y ago
Note that the Apache License isn't compatible with GPLv2. If you don't make use of any patents use BSD/MIT/ISC instead. Sadly there isn't a real alternative permissive license with a patent clause. There is a license called COIL[1], but it hasn't seen much adoption yet. [1] http://coil.apotheon.org/ http://coil.apotheon.org/
- Aldo_MX 11y ago
  Nothing that a dual license GPL/APL wouldn't solve.

andrepd 11y ago

I think it's great to have a free software solution which wholly eclipses the competition. It's an incentive to use free software (use free software and get the best image codec in the world).

breadbox 11y ago
Yes, but the technology of "storing images" is never going to become the domain of free software. It's a little late for that. If you're trying to drive widespread adoption of a competing file format, then don't GPL the only code that implements it. Make a brain-dead reference implementation with a license as unencumbered as you can stand. (Then code up an elegant implementation and GPL that.)

InclinedPlane 11y ago

He intends to make the spec public as well as to switch to a more permissive license once the format has stabilized, so I wouldn't be too concerned yet.