AWARE [SYSTEMS] Imaging expertise for the Delphi developer
AWare Systems, Imaging expertise for the Delphi developer, Home TIFF and LibTiff Mailing List Archive

LibTiff Mailing List

TIFF and LibTiff Mailing List Archive
November 2006

Previous Thread
Next Thread

Previous by Thread
Next by Thread

Previous by Date
Next by Date

Contact

The TIFF Mailing List Homepage
This list is run by Frank Warmerdam
Archive maintained by AWare Systems



Valid HTML 4.01!



Thread

2006.11.24 10:23 "Windows HD Photo - any interest?", by Brad Hards
2006.11.24 16:02 "Re: Windows HD Photo - any interest?", by Andrey Kiselev
2006.11.24 21:53 "Re: Windows HD Photo - any interest?", by Brad Hards
2006.11.24 23:06 "Re: Windows HD Photo - any interest?", by Bob Friesenhahn
2006.11.25 01:53 "Re: Windows HD Photo - any interest?", by Brad Hards
2006.11.25 10:20 "Re: Windows HD Photo - any interest?", by Andrey Kiselev
2006.11.25 13:59 "Re: Windows HD Photo - any interest?", by Sachin Garg
2006.11.25 15:01 "Re: Windows HD Photo - any interest?", by Andrey Kiselev
2006.11.25 15:56 "Re: Windows HD Photo - any interest?", by Frank Warmerdam
2006.11.25 18:00 "Re: Windows HD Photo - any interest?", by Sachin Garg
2006.11.25 15:40 "Re: Windows HD Photo - any interest?", by Andrey Kiselev
2006.11.25 18:41 "Re: Windows HD Photo - any interest?", by Sachin Garg
2006.11.26 15:16 "Re: Windows HD Photo - any interest?", by Leonard Rosenthol
2006.11.26 19:59 "Re: Windows HD Photo - any interest?", by Brad Hards
2006.11.26 20:57 "Re: Windows HD Photo - any interest?", by Bob Friesenhahn

2006.11.24 21:53 "Re: Windows HD Photo - any interest?", by Brad Hards

On Saturday 25 November 2006 03:02, Andrey Kiselev wrote:
> But the codec implementation supplied with this Kit is effectively
> non-free. It is not compatible neither with libtiff license terms nor
> with other popular free software licenses. I hope that it is possible to
> use documentation to do  independent implementation:
I would also like to see an independent implementation (and I think there 
might be enough information to do one given the Bitstream specification in 
the DPK), however I'm not sure why you think the current codec is 
incompatible with the libtiff license terms. Certainly I would agree it might 
not be compatible with the GPL, but my reading of the libtiff license says 
that as long as the codec is generally released (i.e. no licensing fees) then 
it could be incorporated into libtiff.

This is not to say I am sure - I think it is ambiguous.

> "1. You may review these Materials only (a) as a reference to assist You
> in planning and designing Your product, service or technology
> ("Product") to interface with a Microsoft product, specification,
> service or technology ("Microsoft Product") as described in these
> Materials; and (b) to provide feedback on these Materials to Microsoft.
> All other rights are retained by Microsoft; this Agreement does not give
> You rights under any Microsoft patents."
I don't think that any of this says that the codec couldn't be used in 
libtiff. Probably worth a clarification though.

> Though, the patent issue remains.
Certainly this is a bigger issue. I'm always a bit concerned about this kind 
of stuff from Microsoft.

> Anyway, it is out of scope for libtiff at the moment.
I don't understand this part either. If you consider HD Photo to just be a 
different version of TIFF, how does it differ from BigTIFF? [This really is a 
question, not an argument to say that it should be in scope - I'm just trying 
to understand your thinking].

Brad