• 1 Post
  • 176 Comments
Joined 10 months ago
cake
Cake day: December 13th, 2024

help-circle




  • hperrin@lemmy.catoProgrammer Humor@programming.devWebp
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    I didn’t say it was patent free, and the text doesn’t say “unless we say so”. It explicitly says the only way the patent grants can be revoked is if you enter patent litigation or enforcement regarding this code.

    If you or your agent or exclusive licensee institute or order or agree to the institution of patent litigation or any other patent enforcement activity against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that any of these implementations of WebM or any code incorporated within any of these implementations of WebM constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, or inducement of patent infringement, then any patent rights granted to you under this License for these implementations of WebM shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed.

    That is still a problem, but what I was responding to:

    It’s open to write the code, but in order to be authorized to use it you have to get a permit from Google. You can’t eg.: fork from Firefox and use their permit (as you implicitly could with patent-free). Plus, Google can rescind their patent grant at any point, which they are bound to do once they secure ownership of the internet.

    is just wrong.

    I have no problem with calling out Google’s anticompetitive behaviors, even in this case, but don’t lie about it.


  • hperrin@lemmy.catoProgrammer Humor@programming.devWebp
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    So Google contributed to it, but ultimately didn’t invent it and doesn’t own it. In other words, what I said.

    As opposed to WebP, which not only do they own, they also own several patents for that cover the entire bitstream. They offer a patent license that is conditional on not suing them. So they basically own and control WebP entirely. They do not own, nor do they control, JPEG-XL. Google owns patents that cover a portion of JPEG-XL, but don’t have full control.


  • hperrin@lemmy.catoProgrammer Humor@programming.devWebp
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    And then they killed it. It was Google pulling support in Chrome that killed JPEG-XL’s momentum.

    It was the Joint Picture Experts Group that invented it, so Google had no ownership over it, unlike WebP.

    Google’s stance on JPEG XL is ambiguous, as it has contributed to the format but refrained from shipping an implementation of it in its browser. Support in Chromium and Chromeweb browsers was introduced for testing April 1, 2021[29] and removed on December 9, 2022 – with support removed in version 110.[30][31]The Chrome team cited a lack of interest from the ecosystem, insufficient improvements, and a wish to focus on improving existing formats as reasons for removing JPEG XL support.[29][32][30]

    - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG_XL