4 ms·

According to who? According to Wikipedia, JPEG XL is a royalty-free open format, and there is no mentions of patents at all. Are you perhaps confusing it with

According to who? According to Wikipedia, JPEG XL is a royalty-free open format, and there is no mentions of patents at all. Are you perhaps confusing it with HEIF that does have some licensing confusion related to it.

oliwarner 3y ago
I'm not arguing either way but you can often only say "this isn't affected by any patents that we know of". Many are so obscure, generic and bloody-obvious that they avoid basic searches. You don't hear about them until the troll comes for their take.
- mort96 3y ago
  Yeah, so "JPEG XL might have patent issues" in itself is a statement which doesn't mean anything. So we either interpret it to mean, "JPEG XL is more likely to have patent issues than the alternatives (AVIF, WebP, whatever)", in which case capableweb's question is totally fair -- or we interpret it to be a bad-faith attempt at derailing the conversation.
  - oliwarner 3y ago
    It's not meaningless. Knowing there is good novel-feature coverage of patents and knowing you have permission for those patents is better. Webp is encumbered. Google owns many patents that cover Webp features. Google grants permission to use them (not that it needs them in its own product). That is all to say that it's not hard why someone at Google might prefer a technology they have explicit rights over.
    - mort96 3y ago
      How do we know that there are no non-Google patents which cover parts of WebP?
      - oliwarner 3y ago
        Somebody with a good enough handle on things might be able to argue novel features in WebP are all covered by strong, first-party patents, and the tech that isn't new to WebP is so old and prior it's not a licensing issue.
jug 3y ago
Yeah something interesting about this one was that the competing AVIF has been notoriously absent from Edge despite being Chromium based. I finally discovered why from a Microsoft dev commenting on the topic on Mastodon. They have apparently been targeted by a patent troll but are working behind the scenes to resolve it. This is only more fuel to how the current decisions are really not the best way forward as a web-oriented technology. What if Ladybird aims to support AVIF and is hit too? They might not have the finances or resources to be able to ever support it.
- mikae1 3y ago
  > commenting on the topic on Mastodon https://toot.cafe/@slightlyoff/109899372183448386 https://toot.cafe/@slightlyoff/109899372183448386

oliwarner 3y ago

I'm not arguing either way but you can often only say "this isn't affected by any patents that we know of". Many are so obscure, generic and bloody-obvious that they avoid basic searches. You don't hear about them until the troll comes for their take.

mort96 3y ago
Yeah, so "JPEG XL might have patent issues" in itself is a statement which doesn't mean anything. So we either interpret it to mean, "JPEG XL is more likely to have patent issues than the alternatives (AVIF, WebP, whatever)", in which case capableweb's question is totally fair -- or we interpret it to be a bad-faith attempt at derailing the conversation.
- oliwarner 3y ago
  It's not meaningless. Knowing there is good novel-feature coverage of patents and knowing you have permission for those patents is better. Webp is encumbered. Google owns many patents that cover Webp features. Google grants permission to use them (not that it needs them in its own product). That is all to say that it's not hard why someone at Google might prefer a technology they have explicit rights over.
  - mort96 3y ago
    How do we know that there are no non-Google patents which cover parts of WebP?
    - oliwarner 3y ago
      Somebody with a good enough handle on things might be able to argue novel features in WebP are all covered by strong, first-party patents, and the tech that isn't new to WebP is so old and prior it's not a licensing issue.

jug 3y ago

Yeah something interesting about this one was that the competing AVIF has been notoriously absent from Edge despite being Chromium based. I finally discovered why from a Microsoft dev commenting on the topic on Mastodon. They have apparently been targeted by a patent troll but are working behind the scenes to resolve it. This is only more fuel to how the current decisions are really not the best way forward as a web-oriented technology. What if Ladybird aims to support AVIF and is hit too? They might not have the finances or resources to be able to ever support it.

mikae1 3y ago
> commenting on the topic on Mastodon https://toot.cafe/@slightlyoff/109899372183448386 https://toot.cafe/@slightlyoff/109899372183448386