undefined | Better HN

0 pointsmark-r9y ago0 comments

Thanks, I missed that. Still it means that e.g. Photoshop will never support it, leading to the same conclusion.

0 comments

6 comments · 2 top-level

jonsneyers9y ago· 2 in thread

I'm open to negotiation if Adobe would want to include the FLIF encoder in Photoshop. The other contributors have signed a CLA that allows me to change the licensing to anything more permissive than GPLv3. So if Adobe wants it, they can pay for a non-copyleft license (e.g. Apache 2.0). If that ever happens, I'll be happy to share the licensing fees with the other contributors and donate some of it to the FSF.

h1d9y ago

Why would they want to pay? Unless the format is widely spread and the fee is much cheaper than implementing their own what interest do they have to pay? I feel it's the opposite now.

jonsneyers9y ago

Also, Adobe Photoshop (or any other program) is of course free to dynamically link to the libflif library. The LGPL allows that.

vanderZwan9y ago· 2 in thread

Well, IANAL but I think the original creator of FLIF could still decide give a special license to Adobe if they want to negotiate one, no?

EDIT: practically confirmed elsewhere in the thread by the original author, with motivation:

> There is still a lot of room for improvement in the encoder, which is why (at least for now) it has the LGPL license, to ensure that improvements can be integrated in the reference implementation

mark-rOP9y ago

IANAL either, but I suspect it would be between difficult and impossible to offer an alternate license once outside contributions are integrated.

vanderZwan9y ago

Good point, I had forgotten about the viral aspect of the GPL. But it looks like Sneyers already thought of that too, luckily.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse