Arch Linux

lumiwa

Member

Registered: 2005-12-26

Posts: 712

Does M$ want more money?

http://www.cio.com/blog_view.html?CID=29934

Is it really much better or they are want much more money? Is a trap for Linux users?

Last edited by lumiwa (2007-03-09 14:39:19)

McQueen

Member

From: Arizona

Registered: 2006-03-20

Posts: 387

Re: Does M$ want more money?

It's another example of MSoft introducing a shiny object and then looking for attention.

---

/path/to/Truth

Cerebral

Forum Fellow

From: Waterloo, ON, CA

Registered: 2005-04-08

Posts: 3,108

Website

Re: Does M$ want more money?

I dunno - they're submitting it to "an international standards organization" (yay vague) and if it offers the benefits over JPEG that it says it does, I say good for them.  I don't mind who makes the technology, so long as it's open and available to all and won't become another "Windows lock-in" feature.

skymt

Member

Registered: 2006-11-27

Posts: 443

Re: Does M$ want more money?

According to Wikipedia, HD Photo is heavily patented, and the patent terms specifically exclude GPL-style copylefts. If it becomes popular, I expect someone will release an implementation with MIT or public domain licensing so we can use it in GPL software. Bit of a headache though.

iBertus

Member

From: Greenville, NC

Registered: 2004-11-04

Posts: 2,228

Re: Does M$ want more money?

According to Wikipedia, HD Photo is heavily patented, and the patent terms specifically exclude GPL-style copylefts. If it becomes popular, I expect someone will release an implementation with MIT or public domain licensing so we can use it in GPL software. Bit of a headache though.

Even this would risk the onslaught of the MS legal team as I'm sure reverse engineering this will be illegal in most places. Fact is that if this technology is widely accepted, it will prevent viewing of certain web content and perhaps even digital camera photos on alternative operating systems.

skymt

Member

Registered: 2006-11-27

Posts: 443

Re: Does M$ want more money?

Even this would risk the onslaught of the MS legal team as I'm sure reverse engineering this will be illegal in most places. Fact is that if this technology is widely accepted, it will prevent viewing of certain web content and perhaps even digital camera photos on alternative operating systems.

Actually, they're being rather open with it. They've promised not to sue, and they've even released documentation and source code examples.

Reading the Wikipedia entry closer, it looks like the no-GPL clause only applies to the source examples they provided.