Hacker Read

shmerl · 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.

shmerl | karma 12092 | avg karma 1.37 · | 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

pst723 | karma 121 | avg karma 4.32 · | 2024-05-07 05:20:39

It's free for the open source repos we indexed. No pricing yet.

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

Flimm | karma 3021 | avg karma 3.87 · | 2014-10-07 11:40:24+00:00

It is not unfree or anti-free at all. You can use and copy it and modify it and share it, unlike proprietary software.

tachyonbeam | karma 3618 | avg karma 3.62 · | 2019-02-14 22:57:17+00:00

I think most posters in this thread are forgetting this point. RISV-V will have a key advantage because not only will it be free, but you’ll have access to high quality free implementations you can redistribute and remix without copyright issues.

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

Most of their projects are free licenses.

andreslucena | karma 13 | avg karma 2.6 · | 2019-01-20 11:30:07

At the moment we're not aware of any comparison with the other options, but one of our main points is being free and open source from the first day. We'd love if anyone can make this comparison.

hnarn | karma 7687 | avg karma 4.91 · | 2024-04-28 07:51:40

Also only free for non-commercial use since it’s “extended” support, but it’s relatively affordable if you’re in a pinch and must buy it.

hellotoby | karma 137 | avg karma 1.47 · | 2009-12-09 23:14:03+00:00

Well, it's a free alternative which is the main differentiator here.

monocasa | karma 27236 | avg karma 2.94 · | 2022-04-29 13:47:58

Yeah, the spec is free with a permissive license, and individual implementations are expanding to fill the full gamut of free to proprietary.

tomc1985 | karma 11141 | avg karma 2.76 · | 2018-04-18 17:14:28+00:00

Another vote for freesound. FS' licensing is also much more reasonable

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.

ecmascript | karma 883 | avg karma 1.12 · | 2020-08-28 09:22:40+00:00

Altough, their pricing is very fair imo.

Free for non-commercial use.

Free* for use by companies with less than $100K annual gross revenue.

reply

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

ulrischa | karma 2992 | avg karma 3.96 · | 2023-10-22 11:39:41

I'm bot sure if it is FOSS. Seems like Not free for commercial products

version_five | karma 21081 | avg karma 3.82 · | 2023-07-08 08:51:23

I don't think you mean free as in freedom. Maybe freemium, I can't think of a closer short description. They don't cost anything but you're not allowed to use them for most stuff either.

Otoh, there are plenty of Apache and MIT licensed models. For example Open LLaMA and Falcon, Dolly, etc. HF lets you filter by license.

reply

exabrial | karma 16024 | avg karma 2.67 · | 2021-01-31 16:43:10+00:00

Free forever. It's open source.

endisneigh | karma 11792 | avg karma 2.65 · | 2023-09-18 14:19:14

they both charge money and they're both some variant of open source.

theowenyoung | karma 168 | avg karma 3.29 · | 2020-10-01 13:57:06

Free for open source.