Slashdot Mirror

Remember this site? http://burnallgifs.org

We need a similar campaign for Adobe Flash. It's dinosaur technology built for the internet stone age. Time to get rid of it for good.

PNG was "supposed to replace" GIF when Unisys made a move to collect unexpected royalties on GIFs used on the web. And for many designers, it has replaced it with smaller file sizes and lossless compression options. Unfortunately it doesn't support animation and MNG never gained the steam PNG did, so GIF will still be around for a while.

Besides in the USA, software is only copyrighted not patented (yet).

It wasn't just a day, it's a web site! http://burnallgifs.org/

Don't worry, it was just someone burning some GIFs.

A little late though :-)

I guess this gives a whole new meaning to "Burn all GIFs" Day.

1995: Unisys does not require licensing, or fees to be paid, for non-commercial, non-profit GIF-based applications

1999: In all cases, a written license agreement or statement signed by an authorized Unisys representative is required from Unisys for all use, sale or distribution of any software (including so-called "freeware") and/or hardware providing LZW conversion capability.

2002: We Have the Way Out: UNIX sucks!

2005: Linux Rulez!

One of the major problem with patents (in my mind) is the fact that patent holders are permitted to sit on their patents and do nothing, even when they are aware of infringing acts. Then, 10 years down the road, they spring out of nowhere with the infringement suit. This is what Unisys did with GIFs. Unisys allowed the web to become addicted to GIFs, without filing any suits. No, no... they bided their time! Wait until everyone is dependent on GIFs, THEN spring the trap; that's the key! I find this behavior to be underhanded and repugnant. UNISYS HAD TO KNOW! As if they were not aware that GIF was the image format of choice on the web. It's impossible.

Well, it's not really a problem anymore because the gif patent expired, so they're ok to use now.

But I still think the point is a valid one - and an excellent example of why software patents are a bad idea. I know it's contrary to Slashdot groupthink, but what if Microsoft's implementation is the superior one? (Work with me guys, it's hypothetical) Now, because of the patents, it'll never be used and we'll be missing out on a good thing.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: We need a statute of limitation on patent infringement suits! They already do this in China!

One of the major problem with patents (in my mind) is the fact that patent holders are permitted to sit on their patents and do nothing, even when they are aware of infringing acts. Then, 10 years down the road, they spring out of nowhere with the infringement suit. This is what Unisys did with GIFs. Unisys allowed the web to become addicted to GIFs, without filing any suits. No, no... they bided their time! Wait until everyone is dependent on GIFs, THEN spring the trap; that's the key! I find this behavior to be underhanded and repugnant. UNISYS HAD TO KNOW! As if they were not aware that GIF was the image format of choice on the web. It's impossible.

An infringement statute of limitation would prevent possible future evils, too. For example, how long has Microsoft known about SAMBA, and not done anything about it? Might they not enforce their IP at some point in the future, when Linux is finally becoming accepted on the desktop? To kill SAMBA at that point would severely cripple Linux desktop adpotion. A statute of limitations would prevent this.

I'd even go so far as to suggest that a similar statute of limitation be applied to copyright violation suits. If a copyright holder IS AWARE of an IP violation, then they must file suit within a specified amount of time (2 years?), or lose the right to do so, in that instance. It's easy to see how this would benefit society: SCO.

The only thing truely useful they had was .gif maybe LZW compression if you wanna be nice. Now that the patent has expired on gif they are worthless. They are so worthless that doing a google search for Unisys shows http://burnallgifs.org/ on the first page and nothing else but there seperate divisions on following pages. Heh, nothing useful will be coming out of Unisys. Play nicely? You can't play if you don't have any toys. You can watch though.

Soon we may need a burn all jpegs day ;-)

Soon we may need a burn all jpegs day ;-)

Take a high resolution screenshot with any complexity

Sure - JPG is better for most photos - but sharp edges, text (including high resolution screenshots of text) and the like look much better under png (bit for bit).

Slightly offtopic, but noone seems to have mentioned Unisys yet - soon we may be seeing on GNU a page similar to this one: Why There Are No GIF files on GNU Web Pages

Soon we may need a burn all jpegs day ;-)

IANAL, but one way to improve the patent situation (and the IP situation too, for that matter), which I didn't see mentioned in the article, would be to impose a statute of limitation on infringement suits. This is how they do things in China.

China?! Yes, that's right. Some of their laws are better than ours...

This would prevent asshats like Unisys (and, if applied to IP, asshats like SCO) from suing for infringement WELL after they became aware of the issue. A statute of limitaion would ensure that underhanded tactics such as allowing the public to become addicted to GIFs, and then suing years and years later, would no longer be effective.

This wouldn't solve all of the problems with software patents, but I think it's a step in the right direction!

We are done with GIFs long ago and moved on to PNG and MNG

A host of closed graphics formats fell to GIF, JPEG and PNG.

Ah yes, the paragons of patent-unencumbered file formats, JPEG and GIF.

The myriad audio and video formats have all but collapsed to WAV/MP3/MPEG/AVI/WMV/OGG.

Thank God for the elimination of a myriad of different AV formats. Now you'll excuse me while I go sort out my WAV/MP3/MPEG/AVI/WMV/OGG-collection, get out my WAV/MP3/MPEG/AVI/WMV/OGG-player and start listening to some WAV/MP3/MPEG/AVI/WMV/OGGs.

Does making a suggestion on Slashdot to make GIFs count as a troll?

take a look at this. i don't know if they are right, but these guys seem to think that they don't have a case (interestingly, they sorta predicted a problem with that q/a)...

I knew I read somewhere that there was an unenforcible patent on jpeg. I thought it might have been fsf.org but it turned out to be burnallgifs.org

Q: Forgent claims to hold a patent that covers JPEG, right?
A: Yes, but it wouldn't stand up in court, so ignore Forgent. "This JPEG patent will neither stand the test of time or the scrutiny of some good patent litigators. Any concerns are much ado about nothing." -- Greg Aharonian

You have a point with MP3, but the author of BurnAllGIFs.org seems to think the JPEG patent wouldn't stand up in a court of law.

Interesting that they would choose two lossy media formats as models for comparison.

Would one really notice slight noise in the coordinates of points of a mesh or in texel color values?

Frankly, I'm more worried about this from the article:

the intention is to create a way of encoding 3D data as freely available as MP3 for audio

MP3 is not free. Will Intel or one of Intel's licensors pull a Unisys after this format has become popular? Apparently, the 3D Industry Forum's FAQ page doesn't even contain the word "patent".

Yes. You're thinking of copyright. FAT32 is patented

Which means nothing if Microsoft has no plans to assert the patent against developers of free software. Microsoft doesn't want to become the victim of a burnallfat32 FUD campaign that could become higher profile than the one directed at Unisys.

(currently)

What makes you think Microsoft won't pull a Unisys on the major GNU/Linux distributors once businesses begin to adopt GNU/Linux distributions to replace Microsoft Windows?

THIER proprietary technology is basically dead.

Unisys's most popular proprietary technology is not dead worldwide yet, but it is terminal with eight months to live in Japan, Europe, and Canada.

That's why I burn all GIFs first. PNG is a W3C approved standard, and MNG is on the standards track as an extension to PNG. Yes, IE handles PNG at least as well as it handles still GIF, and no, I currently don't need no steenkin' animations.

we just walked in and took over East Timor. Not to mention PNG, who are next.

You're trying to argue that you're not vassals of corporate USA, and you tell us that you'd rather have GIFs?!?

burnallgifs.org

The patent may have expired in the US, but unfortunately it is still in force in Canada, France, Italy, Germany, the United Kingdom and Japan.

But of course there are plenty of technical reasons for switching to PNG as well.

Burn all GIFs!

That's exactly what Unisys did (and continues to do in territories where counterparts to U.S. Patent 4,558,302 have not expired) with the LZW compression in GIF.

Burn All GIFs

1. Oppose the expansion of software patents to your country, if such patents are not available there now.
2. Insist that standards bodies in which you participate make an an "innovation compatible" (IC) license a requirement for any patents needed to implement a standard.
3. Develop and support software that works with non-patented file formats and network protocols, instead of patent-encumbered ones.

Yet it is still so widely used. The /. logo itself is a gif.

here is a site that seems appropriate to this thread.

Bring on PNG/MNG.

Ah yes, the GIF patent. That stopped any free software using GIFs.

Your description glosses over a number of pertinant details. Unisys and IBM were both issued patents covering a compression algorithm commonly used in GIFs (U.S. patents 4,558,302 and 4,814,746, respectively). This presented a problem for those who wanted to deal in the patented algorithm because it meant there were two organizations to deal with to comply, not just one. Generally, as patent law is "harmonized", it becomes easier for corporations (who hold the vast majority of patents) to prevent the spread of Free Software worldwide.

If either IBM or Unisys decided to not issue a license to Free Software developers, issue licenses that depend on a per-unit charge, or place limits on how implementations can use the covered idea (so-called "field-of-use restrictions"), we all lose.

As BurnAllGIFs.org describes, Unisys changed the terms on licensing and can do it again. Software patents in general and this patent in particular contribute to an uncertain playing field on which to distribute software that no reasonable person would dismiss so quickly.

The MP3 patent's licensing terms don't even prohibit legal Free Software implementations - you pay a one-off licensing fee, and you're fine. There seem seem to be plenty.

That's not completely true and it doesn't accurately describe the situation in front of us now. According to mp3licensing.com, which details the licensing fees to distribute MP3 software, "[a] per unit royalty is taken on mp3/mp3PRO products and applications, such as ripping software, jukebox applications, mp3/mp3PRO-enabled CD/DVD players and portable mp3/mp3PRO players." Per-unit fees are incompatible with Free Software licensing because Free Software can be shared and modified freely, so there are no legal Free Software MP3 encoders. For decoders, one should look at the one-time license fee. The amount of money paid to Thomson depends on what is being licensed. The one-time fees start at US$50,000. How many of the programs you listed have paid the appropriate one-time fee to Thomson so they can legally distribute their programs in countries that honor U.S. software patents?

The reality is, those patents haven't killed MP3 or GIFs.

Nor were they meant to--quite to the contrary, leveraging the patents is done after the ideas described in the patents are in widespread use. Discovering a new format is patent-encumbered takes the shine off the new format. Awareness of the patents in both of the cases you talk about were raised after the public had widely used them. That's one of the ways patent holders make money. What's more socially relevant is what effect this has on the users, not some measure of popularity of a format.

RedHat received some press for removing MP3 decoding software from its GNU/Linux distribution. RedHat GNU/Linux is a very popular GNU/Linux distribution. So that means a lot of RedHat users lose unless they obtain a patent license or infringe upon Thomson's patent.

The effect on the users is what RMS' talk on this subject focuses on as well (approximately 17m into the talk, according to the transcript). RMS tells the story of a compression algorithm that was about to be used in a compression program but couldn't be used because a patent had been issued covering the very same algorithm. RMS learned of this patent a week before that program was set to debut. I doubt that is the only time a program "died before it was born" (quoting RMS' description of the program that implemented the patented algorithm).

I think you are glossing over some of the key points that make software patents so unpalatable to all but the richest businesses.with extant patents which they want to leverage against the public, or enough money so they can cross-license with the patent holder.

I like your site, but I didn't see any transparent-background (shaped) pngs. Last time I checked, the major browsers rendered them with a gray background.

IE 5.x and 6.x draw 32-bit PNG images with a gray background, but they properly draw 8-bit PNG images that use binary transparency. In GIMP, convert your transparent images to indexed mode before saving them as PNG.

As I said, I don't see any major web sites using png's yet.

Several online serial comics have switched, including Hackles, home of the PNG Tips for Cartoonists. To see more GIF-free sites, visit Burn All GIFs. However, you are correct: Few to no web sites that advertise on network television have switched from still GIF to PNG.

the image covers up the first word(s) of some paragraphs. For example, I see this: t (.mb) programs into one ROM for

Which browser did you use, and at about what window width? Mozilla 1.4b handles wrapping around floated elements correctly, at least on my pages with screenshots.

Animated GIFs are already covered by the infamous Unisys LZW patent, which fortunately expires in a couple of months.

I thought JPEG was an open standard, why does Forgent stand to profit from this?

Unlike GIF, JPEG was established by a standards body (ISO). Now they want to renege on that.

Register has more info on this one. Weird.

After reading all this, it sounds like Houstin opted for SimDesk only because they felt trapped by Microsoft licensing issues.

It's not clear to me they will save money, although it does seem clear that by doing this they can at least quantify the amount of money they need to spend. I wonder if these kinds of MS sales tactics can be argued as entrapment or bait & switch? Customers shouldn't need to feel like they must pay millions to get MS off their back, especially when the amount involved is in dispute.

A greater concern for Houstin is where the data will be stored. It's not clear from the website or the marketing blurbs if the SimDesk apps drop documents locally or remotely to the SimDesk server. At a minimum, the patent-pending Trashbin is purported to be remote - which would give you access to this content from anywhere. I sure hope this system is secure!

Of course, the fact that they are looking to partner with Unisys is reason enough to be concerned. Remember GIF? TBPH, Microsoft doesn't look like a bad alternative here -- if anything this should be a wakeup call for MS that license audits need to be approached with extreme caution.

In fact, the college I go to uses, for its on-line registration, such a site; this site refuses to allow me to sign on for on-line classes in Mozilla. However, Konqueror can render the page well enough so that I don't have to get on the phone to add classes or view my schedule.

As an aside, the team which designed the web page were very incompetent (to give credit where credit is due, Unisys was one of the companies doing the contracting; other parties responsible for this fiasco will not be named because no one else responsible has attacked the free software movement). These same people also destroyed the computer database of students who were to receive financial aid when transferring it to the new system, forcing each and every student who wanted finanacial aid to completely resubmit any and all paperwork.

- Sam

In this case, let us say (and it is only a possibility) that SCO Linux is considering suing Linux users for patent violations. This would be controversial, and so they float a trial balloon first. If a big enough fuss is made, NOW, then they will reconsider. If not, they will proceed with the legal nasty-grams to the smallish, underfunded websites to start building their precedents.

Think it can't happen here? Think again.

-renard

Under these circumstances, during discovery, no corporation (except maybe [a shady consulting firm]) is going to fail to produce the exact page they displayed when asked for it.

Then how do you explain Unisys suddenly ending the program for royalty-free licensing of LZW patents in royalty-free software? (Look at Burn All GIFs under "Didn't they already settle this?".)

Unisys were well aware of the widespread use of LZW GIF image compression in many vendors software, so it's better to use PNG.

At the very least they could've used PNGs. GIFs are evil.

First:
This is the largest front page post I've ever seen...

Second:
HDTV has the Dolby AC-3 technology in the standard. That means Dolby will get a cut off of every TV with a built in digital tuner and every HDTV tuner box. It also means royalties on many broadcast tools. I don't know the license regulations, but it may also mean a cut on every show that uses AC-3. Sucky, but also, time to buy Dolby stock.

Just imagine if the web had turned out this way. Companies keep trying to move things into their corner, even without standards bodies helping. What is Quicktime became the video standard on the web? I love the format, but it's also been hell getting Linux to support it. The web has been burned this way before. Everything will be okay, as long as we burn back.

How are bitmaps two dimensional? Is the data in a bitmap an array of some sort?

Yes. Bitmap data is a two-dimensional array of pixel values, which can be scalars (indexed or grayscale modes), vectors (rgb or cmyk modes), or polar vectors (sih mode). It is then serialized to a one-dimensional stream of bytes.

If that's true then is it true for all bitmap formats?

All lossless-recompression bitmap formats represent a two-dimensional array, perhaps with different packing techniques (BMP and PCX use forms of RLE; GIF uses LZW; PNG uses deflation; TIFF can use several formats). JPEG uses a block transformation (2D DCT), quantization (of scalar values), and then RLE + Huffman packing.

I use ESR's gif2png to convert my legacy GIF files to PNG for web use. I provide Solaris SPARC and x86 packages (Linux packages are available elsewhere).

I'm the editor of Linux Journal and vice-president of the Silicon Valley Linux Users Group.

# Why should we burn all GIFs?

The Internet is a good thing because you don't need the permission of any one entity to publish. If you choose a patented format, you are throwing away the advantage of publishing on the Internet in the first place.

Many commonly used image editing programs come with a GIF license. However, GIF licenses on shrink-wrap software do not apply to GIFs that you may generate on the fly -- every site that does a dynamic map or chart in GIF format has to get a separate license.

# How do you burn something that is not tangible?

You print it out, and if you're holding your event in a place that prohibits public fires, you draw flames on it with a marker. It's not the burning that's important, it's freeing yourself from needing a license to publish.

# Greplaw still uses GIFs. What should we do instead?

Use PNG or JPEG images, depending on which gives you the best quality and image size. Almost all browsers in use today support both.

# Software patentability is entering Europe and European strong author's rights are entering the US. Why is this is a problem?

I'm not familiar with the strong author's rights issue.

Software patents are a big problem, though.

Best to start from first principles, since people argue the same issue from different points of view and never get anywhere. I'm going to be US-centric and look at our Constitution, which I think soundly expresses the point of view that patents are not a property right or a natural right.

Copyrights and patents appear in the Constitution in Article 1, Section 8, along with other miscellaneous economic powers of Congress. They're right next to "Post offices and post roads".

If patents are not a natural right or a property right, what are they? As you might guess by the post office and road connection, they're a government program to promote economic growth. Patents are intended to do two things: promote R&D investment by the private sector; and encourage the private sector to publish inventions. The Constitution makes this explicit in its stated reason for copyrights and patents: "to promote the progress of science and useful arts."

Patents reward these two economically desirable behaviors (doing research and publishing) with a temporary government-granted monopoly on a particular invention. Congress has full discretion on what kinds of content can get a patent and on how long a patent can last. (If patents were a "right" the Constitution would require them -- as it is, the Constitution only allows them.)

So, how should Congress decide which kinds of content get a patent and which don't? You have to strike a balance between, on one hand, the economic benefit of any R&D motivated by the prospect of a patent that would not have happened otherwise, and on the other hand, the transaction costs that are an inevitable result of the patent's existence.

You have to draw the line of what gets a patent and what doesn't somewhere. If you allow the patenting of rhyming words, sports plays, or musical notes, day-to-day life becomes an impossible mess of patent cross-licensing. And, as for these areas, there is no economic evidence that software patents help the economy or even encourage R&D. They may do the opposite -- see the Bessen and Maskin paper (PDF-format).

Software is a good thing because in software, a small investment can create and manage great complexity. When you impose the same transaction costs on software as on hardware, much useful software that could otherwise have been created does not exist. We are seeing this today in the field of video compression. The MPEG patent licensing mess is excluding everyone except for large, well-funded corporations from creating innovative new video-related software.

There may be increased R&D investment in a few areas, such as video compression, due to the prospect of a lucrative patent, but this economic gain is swamped by the loss of productive software later.

As a software patent opponent, I argue simply that patentability creep should be rolled back. The patent office should again exclude algorithms and business methods, as it already excludes ordinary mathematical theorems and their proofs. Forming a "GPL patent pool" might help to cut some of the transaction costs where GPL-covered software is concerned but cannot hope to ameliorate patents' harm to developers who use other licenses.

# Why should a lawyer be interested in Linux?

Why should a lawyer be interested in Cat 5 cable, or ATX power supplies, or USB keyboards? Linux is a generic, commodity item that does what you want it to do, as part of a larger system that you control.

# How will free software change society?

Free software won't so much change society as it will bring the computer business more in line with the rest of the economy. If you went shopping for any non-computer product, and got offered an End User License Agreement like those offered in the computer business, you'd laugh and walk out. Free software gives the customer the same rights of inspection and control that he or she has when buying non-computer products such as furniture (you can cut a hole for your cables in your desk) or cars (you can change your own oil.)

If you want to read a novel where software-like licensing is applied to a regular product with ludicrous results, read "Secrets of the Wholly Grill: A Novel about Cravings, Barbecue, and Software" by Lawrence G Townsend.

# Many countries consider public procurement policies where free software should be encouraged or even mandated. What is your take on a "Peru law"?

Governments have a responsibility to their citizens not to enter into unfair contracts. Most or all proprietary software licenses are unfair contracts, and subject the customer to lock-in and limit the customer's ability to fix problems.

Microsoft's lobbying against fair software purchase laws has been weak. They don't even put an End User License Agreement on their web site. If even the people who wrote it are ashamed of it, why should anyone else be willing to accept it?

# After September 11, 2001 you wrote an open letter to Michael Eisner, head of Disney, urging him not to go to Washington, D.C. to lobby for the SSSCA. Why did you do that?

I am on a mailing list based on a Linux server across the street from the World Trade Center. On September 11th, the traffic was about who's where, is everyone all right, which hospitals are open for blood donations, is a particular subway station open, what's going on. Stuff you can't get from TV. We can't let the media corporations seize control of hardware, lock out free software, and turn the net into a one-way medium like TV. Unless printing and postage get real cheap real fast, free speech in the USA needs the net.

# If major companies like IBM and Sun discontinue their support of free software, what will the effects be on the current movement?

Remember the question, "If the Linux startups fail, what will happen to free software?" There's enough customer pull that if customers can't get free software products and services from IBM and Sun, they'll get it someplace else.

# Declan McCullagh of News.com has stated: 'Trust me, a few--even a few thousand--peeved e-mail messages won't change vote totals that lopsided', hence geeks should focus on code, not on government. Do you agree?

Email spam was a "geek" issue until recently, and now, as it affects more and more people, the organizations that begain calling politicians' attention to it are involved in the mainstream political process. If you learn and understand the political process now, and begin making contacts, you will better be able to use the support you get as the anti-Net crackdown affects more and more people.

Declan is half-right in that focusing on code is good too. By all means, develop something that's questionable DMCA-wise but that everybody wants to use. You will motivate more people to be interested in DMCA reform.

# Finally - what is Pigdog and why?

Pigdog.org is the leading Internet news and content site. I am not an employee, just a satisfied reader.

Don Marti was interviewed by Mikael Pawlo.

Voyager is carrying a GIF image of DNA? Good luck tracking that one down, Unisys!

IE has broken support for full alpha!

I think what yerricde was getting at was that you don't really need full alpha to Burn All GIFs on your web site.

FWIW, I believe the Unisys patent covers only a specific form of GIF compression -- not GIFs themselves. Their patent applies to LZW compression, but not RLE or other forms.

More info at www.burnallgifs.org.

Reminds me of the widespread terror of the usage of GIFs a few years ago. Things have died down around that one, and it would seem that nothing happened (at least that has bothered me in anyway) to restrict GIF usage. Then again, Unisys (the patent holder) was a company I had heard of before and had something to lose. This new development with JPEGs seems to be from a company who's desparate to make a buck.

burnallgifs.org