 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2001-01-31 10:18, Warp <war### [at] tag povrayorg> wrote:
>OpenMined <**Mail Free America**> wrote:
>: Looks very promising for image manipulation. However, does not
>: apparently satisfy the licensed GIF requirement.
>
> Why is it so important that they have licensed GIF? If you live
>in a country where (idiotic) program patents can be made and unisys
>has patented LZW there, you'll have to get the license for yourself
>anyways, independent of whether imagemagick has the license or not.
Unisys doesn't care whether the licence is payed by the vendor of
the software or the user. For commercial software, the vendor pays
some amount for every copy sold, so the user doesn't have to pay. For
software distributed for free, obviously the programmer can't pay some
fee to Unisys for every download, so theoretically the user has to pay.
BTW, some time ago I looked up the fee on Unisys home page. It was
pretty low (a few dollars at most), and I considered actually paying it
(although I live in a country where to my knowledge LZW isn't patented)
- handling costs for a single user licensing a single copy of a single
program would definitely cost them more than they earn - imagine a few
hundred thousand people from all over the world inquiring how they can
pay, sending them the money in strange ways, and Unisys loses 100 bucks
on each transaction ;->
hp
--
_ | Peter J. Holzer | All Linux applications run on Solaris,
|_|_) | Sysadmin WSR | which is our implementation of Linux.
| | | hjp### [at] wsracat |
__/ | http://www.hjp.at/ | -- Scott McNealy, Dec. 2000
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Peter, I checked their site recently and came away with the belief that the
license was a flat $5000 for software vendors, and a different arrangement
for websites which serve software-generated GIFs. I saw no mechanism by
which they would license anything for a few dollars.
Wish I was wrong about that, but that's the way it seems.
___
>
> Unisys doesn't care whether the licence is payed by the vendor of
> the software or the user. For commercial software, the vendor pays
> some amount for every copy sold, so the user doesn't have to pay. For
> software distributed for free, obviously the programmer can't pay some
> fee to Unisys for every download, so theoretically the user has to pay.
>
> BTW, some time ago I looked up the fee on Unisys home page. It was
> pretty low (a few dollars at most), and I considered actually paying it
> (although I live in a country where to my knowledge LZW isn't patented)
> - handling costs for a single user licensing a single copy of a single
> program would definitely cost them more than they earn - imagine a few
> hundred thousand people from all over the world inquiring how they can
> pay, sending them the money in strange ways, and Unisys loses 100 bucks
> on each transaction ;->
>
> hp
>
> --
> _ | Peter J. Holzer | All Linux applications run on Solaris,
> |_|_) | Sysadmin WSR | which is our implementation of Linux.
> | | | hjp### [at] wsracat |
> __/ | http://www.hjp.at/ | -- Scott McNealy, Dec. 2000
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
OpenMined <**Mail Free America**> wrote:
: LZW is still apparently in their source code, and one can
: enable it in the compilation, but the resultant program is legally subject
: to licensing requirements. For example, if I have a webserver which serves
: up on-the-fly GIF images using my compilation of ImageMagik, I am infringing
: on the LZW patent.
I couldn't care less. I have made a GIF reader library and I use GIFs in
my web page.
The LZW patent, besides being idiotic, does not hold here, so I can do
whatever I want.
--
char*i="b[7FK@`3NB6>B:b3O6>:B:b3O6><`3:;8:6f733:>::b?7B>:>^B>C73;S1";
main(_,c,m){for(m=32;c=*i++-49;c&m?puts(""):m)for(_=(
c/4)&7;putchar(m),_--?m:(_=(1<<(c&3))-1,(m^=3)&3););} /*- Warp -*/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
A few dollars? maybe a few thousands of dollars (5000$ to my knowledge)! If
you live in a country were UNISYS can sue you, you'd better pay or choose an
alternative (the usual practise for mobsters asking you to pay
"insurances").
An advise: go http://burnallgifs.org/ here.
Alessandro Coppo
a.c### [at] iolit
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In my opinion choosing an alternative is a good choise even if you live
in a country where there are no software patents.
GIF sucks. It's a braindead image format.
It was acceptable 10 years ago, when a display of 256 colors was luxury.
Nowadays it's out.
--
char*i="b[7FK@`3NB6>B:b3O6>:B:b3O6><`3:;8:6f733:>::b?7B>:>^B>C73;S1";
main(_,c,m){for(m=32;c=*i++-49;c&m?puts(""):m)for(_=(
c/4)&7;putchar(m),_--?m:(_=(1<<(c&3))-1,(m^=3)&3););} /*- Warp -*/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Have to disagree with you on principle, Alessandro.
Mobsters and other extortionists/thieves take property to which they have no
moral claim, i.e., they did not PRODUCE it nor did the PURCHASE it. They
simply take it by the use of illegitimate force.
Patents (properly implemented by governments) are a recognition of the moral
right to benefit from one's intellectual work without the benefits simply
being taken by those who want it for free. Let those who are against ALL
software patents (non-trivial and nonobvious included) ask themselves why
they would not extend that principle to food, clothing, entertainment and
art, automobiles.
Those who reply that they WOULD, who fail to recognize the morality of
proprietary rights, are simply advocating that "society" become the
mobsters, with each of us becoming a slave to the "greater" whole.
I will not defend Unisys' questionable implementation of their proprietary
rights, but I will defend their rights and the principle of the right of
people and groups to the fruits of their labors.
Let those who want "free" or "open" software PRODUCE it themselves and give
it away. There is a nobility in contributing and cooperating. But one
often encounters a self-righteousness in those who do, an impugning of the
ethics of those who believe in property rights. (Read Richard Stallman's
statements on these issues.)
I apologize to povray.unix for digressing onto a philosophical issue. I am
in the formative stages of an essay on this subject, and were it finished
would have simply posted the link. But on some issues silence is not an
option.
___
Alessandro Coppo <a.c### [at] iolit> wrote in message
news:3a7952e9@news.povray.org...
> A few dollars? maybe a few thousands of dollars (5000$ to my knowledge)!
If
> you live in a country were UNISYS can sue you, you'd better pay or choose
an
> alternative (the usual practise for mobsters asking you to pay
> "insurances").
>
> An advise: go http://burnallgifs.org/ here.
>
> Alessandro Coppo
> a.c### [at] iolit
>
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
What might that alternative be? You did not offer any suggestions.
If I wish to distribute animated graphics files, is there any other choice?
(Not a "real soon now" solution, but one that is readable by virtually all,
here and now.)
GIF, by the way, for some types of work, actually seems the SUPERIOR format,
at least compared to JPG.
When PNG becomes universal (and animated), the issue might become moot.
Until then, GIF hardly seems "out" to me. Unless I'm missing something.
___
Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message news:3a795aaf@news.povray.org...
> In my opinion choosing an alternative is a good choise even if you live
> in a country where there are no software patents.
> GIF sucks. It's a braindead image format.
> It was acceptable 10 years ago, when a display of 256 colors was luxury.
> Nowadays it's out.
>
> --
> char*i="b[7FK@`3NB6>B:b3O6>:B:b3O6><`3:;8:6f733:>::b?7B>:>^B>C73;S1";
> main(_,c,m){for(m=32;c=*i++-49;c&m?puts(""):m)for(_=(
> c/4)&7;putchar(m),_--?m:(_=(1<<(c&3))-1,(m^=3)&3););} /*- Warp -*/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
The problem is that UNISYS did not enforce the patent in order to make GIF a
widespread format and then... they started asking the "insurance" or else...
Would you like the POVRay team to jump up and tell that everybody use has
ever used POV must pay them for their past, present and future usage (and
having a legal team to enforce their will)?
Solutions:
1) I hate animations: even with 56K modem they are sloooow to load. The
solution? stop loading the file and visit another web site ;-);
2) nowadays all browsers support .PNGs. Use JPEGs for lossy compression and
.PNG for lossless. By the way, JPEG2000 is rumored to be a 2-level standard,
with the lowest level (and low quality) free and the upper one with
royalties.
Alessandro Coppo
a.c### [at] iolit
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Alessandro Coppo <a.c### [at] iolit> wrote in message
news:3a79f556@news.povray.org...
> The problem is that UNISYS did not enforce the patent in order to make GIF
a
> widespread format and then... they started asking the "insurance" or
else...
> Would you like the POVRay team to jump up and tell that everybody use has
> ever used POV must pay them for their past, present and future usage (and
> having a legal team to enforce their will)?
As I stated, "I will not defend Unisys' questionable implementation of their
proprietary
rights." Under United States law, if patent rights are not enforced for a
sufficient period, they can be jeopardized. This principle arises from
precisely the issue you cite, the calculated seduction of widespread usage
followed by an attemp to extract a penalty. So far as I know, however, law
in this area in not objective and explicit, but (to employ a contradiction)
a 'fuzzy standard' decided on a case-by-case basis.
Clearly 10 weeks lax defense as a standard is too short, 10 years is too
long. It's a judgment call, and the judgment in this case (you can be sure
Corel argued these points) is smelly to me too. But honest people can
differ, and I'm unwilling to call Unisys' actions extortion.
To my thinking, property is property. I don't believe that because you
decline to chase people off your 5 hectare Tyrolian parcel for 10 years that
any 'squatters' rights should inure to them, that the property should no
longer be yours.
The answer is: Pay the rent or move.
>
> Solutions:
> 1) I hate animations: even with 56K modem they are sloooow to load. The
> solution? stop loading the file and visit another web site ;-);
Smarty! :-) That's no solution. If I didn't think they were useful I
wouldn't be having this conversation.
As for download speed, in a few years DSL will be dominant in the US. Of
course, in a two years the LZW patents will expire. :-)
> 2) nowadays all browsers support .PNGs. Use JPEGs for lossy compression
and
> .PNG for lossless. By the way, JPEG2000 is rumored to be a 2-level
standard,
> with the lowest level (and low quality) free and the upper one with
> royalties.
Interesting... will have to look into that.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
OpenMined <**Mail Free America**> wrote:
: If I wish to distribute animated graphics files, is there any other choice?
Firstly, if you want to put gifs in your www page you'll have to pay quite
a lot of money to unisys (at least if you live in one of those countries).
Secondly, 256-color animations are quite restricted. Of course there are
some things (like really flat cartoon animations) where 256 colors is enough,
but usually it isn't (eg. if you make a rendered animation with povray).
Rendered animations converted to gif usually look like crap.
GIF doesn't support sound either.
: GIF, by the way, for some types of work, actually seems the SUPERIOR format,
: at least compared to JPG.
Now you are comparing gif with an image format which doesn't support
animation.
GIF is certainly crap compared to JPG or PNG (the choice between the two
depends on the type of image). With most images JPG, although lossy, gives
a very good quality with laughably small file sizes (specially when
compressing with the right parameter to avoid artifacts).
I made a test to compare file sizes with the skyvase image (at 640x480)
in the standard povray distribution:
skyvase.gif 114 979
skyvase.jpg 57 453
skyvase.png 197 256
skyvase256.png 96 988
(The images can be found at
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~warp/skyvasetest/skyvase* (by specifying the explicit
name of the image).)
It's interesting to note that the 256-color png image which (when
uncompressed) results pixel-by-pixel in the exact same image as the gif
image is quite smaller.
The jpg image (with very high quality to avoid visible artifacts) is much
smaller than the gif image, even when it's a truecolor image.
It's also interesting that even the truecolor png (which preserves
exactly the original image) is not unacceptably larger then the gif image
(of course it's much larger because it's lossless and it has to contain
24-bit colors instead of 8-bit colors, but still it's suprisingly small).
The png image format also supports a lot more things that gif doesn't
(for example gif only supports 24-bit colors in its palette while png
supports up to 48-bit colors, gif supports one (1) transparent color while
png supports a whole alpha channel (which can be up to 16 bits deep) and so
on).
What makes you say that gif is "superior" goes beyond me. Gif is just crap.
: When PNG becomes universal
In which world do you live? What makes you think that png is not
"universal"? Which program does not support png (and don't bother
mentioning some 5 years old programs)?
I would say that nowadays there are more programs (specially freeware ones)
that support png and don't support gif (because of the patent issues).
--
char*i="b[7FK@`3NB6>B:b3O6>:B:b3O6><`3:;8:6f733:>::b?7B>:>^B>C73;S1";
main(_,c,m){for(m=32;c=*i++-49;c&m?puts(""):m)for(_=(
c/4)&7;putchar(m),_--?m:(_=(1<<(c&3))-1,(m^=3)&3););} /*- Warp -*/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
