a.badger at gmail.com
Tue May 22 23:19:16 UTC 2007
On Tue, 2007-05-22 at 15:42 -0700, Thomas Chung wrote:
> On 5/22/07, Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Basically, I have yet to see any indication that there are current,
> > valid patents on jpeg so I don't understand why you think it does not
> > qualify as a "patent-free format".
> It seems we're arguing for something we don't know for sure.
> We all agree png is "patent-free format" but we do not know for sure
> if there is still *potential* patent issue remaining with jpg. That's
> what we're trying to avoid. Once again, I'm not lawyer so if you
> believe jpg is "patent-free format" for sure, please be my guest. :)
What I'm saying is that I haven't been able to find anything that claims
there are any current patent problems with jpeg. Which means that jpeg
is as "patent-free" as png -- ie I can also not find anything which
claims that there's any patent problems with png.
Bringing up a patent that is both expired and ruled invalid by the
patent office and saying that is a reason to avoid a format is just
wrong-headed. Should we not use SSL and GPG because they use algorithms
which have expired patents?
If you can point to any current claims that the format is patent
encumbered then we have a reason to ban its use. Otherwise you're just
spreading fear of something that doesn't exist to prevent the use of a
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/infrastructure/attachments/20070522/18225709/attachment.bin
More information about the infrastructure