2006.11.24 10:23 "[Tiff] Windows HD Photo - any interest?", by Brad Hards

2006.11.24 21:53 "Re: [Tiff] 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].