Hacker Read

shmerl · 2015-10-02 15:47:00+00:00

> FLIF is completely royalty-free and it is not encumbered by software patents.

That's good but does it actually avoid patent minefields that others scattered around? That's equally critical for healthy adoption.

reply

clouddrover | karma 22175 | avg karma 3.91 · | 2018-01-22 18:15:42

> Royalty free isn't good enough

Yes it is. It means there can be many HEIF implementations, open source or otherwise. Pick the implementation you want to use and use it.

reply

shmerl | karma 12092 | avg karma 1.37 · | 2022-10-04 01:34:36

Both officially are free, but AVIF possibly has stronger defensive backing given it's defended from patent aggressors by AOM.

userbinator | karma 78987 | avg karma 4.37 · | 2016-11-05 15:18:03+00:00

As the grandparent comment says, it is free for non-commercial use.

Of course, this also only applies in countries which enforce software patents.

reply

bbrazil | karma 708 | avg karma 2.33 · | 2016-07-18 19:00:28+00:00

It's open source, so there's no charge for the software.

sneak | karma 23753 | avg karma 1.62 · | 2024-06-10 04:05:42

Open sourcing software to which you hold copyright doesn’t cost anything.

mratzloff | karma 4406 | avg karma 3.09 · | 2013-08-26 19:28:10+00:00

Most of their projects are free licenses.

whbrown | karma 39 | avg karma 1.26 · | 2021-04-28 06:26:29

It's free and open-source.

tpxl | karma 2629 | avg karma 2.32 · | 2021-01-28 12:03:11+00:00

It's free and seems to be experimental, so I don't see an issue.

elblanco | karma 4244 | avg karma 2.0 · | 2010-01-14 13:49:10+00:00

Right, it's one of the few pieces of software with an actual "free" license (as in freedom AND beer).

Their approach to licensing is interesting and simple.

reply

judah | karma 2442 | avg karma 4.99 · | 2016-02-23 20:46:43+00:00

It's free for open source projects.

Kalium | karma 11257 | avg karma 2.69 · | 2019-01-04 18:41:41+00:00

You're absolutely right! The basic software infrastructure that can be adapted to safely and securely handle user data is completely free.

It may be worth considering that adapting said FLOSS software, doing the requisite custom integration work, and then doing a large migration successfully might all be perhaps slightly less free than the software you correctly and wisely point to.

reply

neilkinnish | karma 9 | avg karma 0.53 · | 2013-08-03 15:53:30+00:00

It's free and open source

aloisdg | karma 1670 | avg karma 3.29 · | 2024-06-20 16:12:51

Most FOSS solutions are free

ur-whale | karma 5038 | avg karma 1.32 · | 2019-08-24 06:24:47+00:00

It may be free, but it's still proprietary

littlestymaar | karma 8278 | avg karma 1.96 · | 2018-01-24 20:04:58+00:00

There is no monetization concern here, the project is sponsored by Framasoft, a French non-profit organization who wants to provide free-software alternatives to services owned by big corporations.

stitched2gethr | karma 102 | avg karma 1.32 · | 2021-03-07 00:32:07+00:00

Well it is free. It's also open source for those of us that believe that's important in its own right.

kragen | karma 31428 | avg karma 2.09 · | 2021-03-09 15:27:10

More to the point, it's not just gratis (you could get it gratis on libgen previously); it's libre, legally free, under a CC-BY license.

1337shadow | karma 923 | avg karma 1.46 · | 2020-07-10 11:59:36+00:00

FreeIPA is a nice FOSS alternative.

opan | karma 1591 | avg karma 1.7 · | 2018-08-10 16:11:15+00:00

I would argue that if some software is under a free (libre) license, it's worth using over [non-free] first party stuff. This doesn't apply to f.lux, but does to redshift.