Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (
More info?)
Bill Tuthill wrote:
> Brian Sullivan MVP <brians@wormtiredmeetingbywire.com> wrote:
> >
> > I hadn't seen this posted here and thought it might be of interest:
> > http
/openraw.org/
>
> 'Twas of interest.
>
> "Support of Adobe's DNG is support of establishing another monopoly.
[snip]
That is the opposite of the truth! DNG has made it easier than ever for
other companies to process Raw files. The number of packages that read
DNG, or indeed write DNG, increases month by month:
http/avondale.typepad.com/rawformat/2005/04/dng_support_sta.html
http/avondale.typepad.com/rawformat/2005/04/picture_arena_1.html
There is also a myth that Adobe can somehow control you if you use DNG.
But how? The current version of DNG is 1.1.0.0. That number is written
into every file that conforms to this version of the specification. And
Adobe can't change DNG 1.1.0.0! (They can only bring out new versions).
The DNG 1.1.0.0 specification has been downloaded all over the world.
Even I have copy.
If lots of packages (or indeed cameras) write DNG 1.1.0.0, and lots of
packages read DNG 1.1.0.0, Adobe is out of the loop. Given that they
have published a global licence to use DNG, would a court take
seriously any claim by Adobe that contradicted that licence?
http/www.adobe.com/products/dng/license.html
(I suspect that one reason Compuserve and Forgent succeeded with their
claims over GIF and JPEG is that they had never published a global
licence for free use of them. Does anyone have any specialised
knowledge of this?)
--
Barry Pearson
http
/www.barry.pearson.name/photography/
http
/www.birdsandanimals.info/
Facebook
Twitter