Comments on: Information about Adobe DNG http://photoshopnews.com/2005/04/24/information-about-adobe-dng/ The latest news about the top pixel wrangling application on the planet. Thu, 04 Dec 2008 02:23:55 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.5 By: Barry Pearson http://photoshopnews.com/2005/04/24/information-about-adobe-dng/#comment-807 Barry Pearson Mon, 10 Oct 2005 09:02:30 +0000 http://photoshopnews.com/?p=262#comment-807 Here is a more up to date list of products that support DNG in some form or other, at DNG's first birthday. http://www.barry.pearson.name/articles/dng/products_y1.htm Here is a more up to date list of products that support DNG in some form or other, at DNG’s first birthday.

http://www.barry.pearson.name/articles/dng/products_y1.htm

]]> By: MItch http://photoshopnews.com/2005/04/24/information-about-adobe-dng/#comment-366 MItch Tue, 26 Apr 2005 10:53:40 +0000 http://photoshopnews.com/?p=262#comment-366 While I appreciate and value the benefit of a standard like DNG, the last thing anyone should call the format is "non-proprietary." I have no idea about the legal definition of the word but don't forget Adobe clearly expresses and interest in exclusively owning the file format. Adobe gets to decide who is "compliant" with the format. Adobe could find something extremely small wrong with someone's implementation and sue them under that pretense - now or in the future. If someone outside Adobe has a good idea to improve the format, will Adobe will allow it if that someone is a competitor and the new product would harm Adobe's profits? Nothing in the license says the spec will be free or public forever. Will the 1.1 version of the spec require developers (or users!) to pay a royalty? Will the license change so that all software using the spec after 2006 require a "Made with Adobe" splash screen? Or a requirement for the user to register with Adobe? Even with the best of current intentions, what happens when Adobe is bought out, or sells the format spec, or goes out of business? Under the current license, if I wanted to write a book on programming for the DNG format I'd be at Adobe's mercy because the license doesn't explicitly allow others to redistribute the specification. At a minimum, Adobe should add something to the license that clearly states this and all future versions of the spec (usage and the spec itself) are in the public domain now and in perpetuity. But the real answer is to form an industry group to oversee the format, and transfer all rights to them under similar conditions (public domain in perpetuity). Don't get me wrong - the DNG format is a Good Thing and I do hope all camera makers support it. But it's far from the idealized panacea everyone is talking about. While I appreciate and value the benefit of a standard like DNG, the last thing anyone should call the format is “non-proprietary.” I have no idea about the legal definition of the word but don’t forget Adobe clearly expresses and interest in exclusively owning the file format. Adobe gets to decide who is “compliant” with the format. Adobe could find something extremely small wrong with someone’s implementation and sue them under that pretense - now or in the future. If someone outside Adobe has a good idea to improve the format, will Adobe will allow it if that someone is a competitor and the new product would harm Adobe’s profits?

Nothing in the license says the spec will be free or public forever. Will the 1.1 version of the spec require developers (or users!) to pay a royalty? Will the license change so that all software using the spec after 2006 require a “Made with Adobe” splash screen? Or a requirement for the user to register with Adobe? Even with the best of current intentions, what happens when Adobe is bought out, or sells the format spec, or goes out of business?

Under the current license, if I wanted to write a book on programming for the DNG format I’d be at Adobe’s mercy because the license doesn’t explicitly allow others to redistribute the specification.

At a minimum, Adobe should add something to the license that clearly states this and all future versions of the spec (usage and the spec itself) are in the public domain now and in perpetuity. But the real answer is to form an industry group to oversee the format, and transfer all rights to them under similar conditions (public domain in perpetuity).

Don’t get me wrong - the DNG format is a Good Thing and I do hope all camera makers support it. But it’s far from the idealized panacea everyone is talking about.

]]> By: PSN Editorial Staff http://photoshopnews.com/2005/04/24/information-about-adobe-dng/#comment-358 PSN Editorial Staff Tue, 26 Apr 2005 03:26:18 +0000 http://photoshopnews.com/?p=262#comment-358 Actually, no. Adobe is in the process of developing an SDK, but there is not one available at this time. You may have been thinking of Dave Coffin's Dcraw.c? Actually, no. Adobe is in the process of developing an SDK, but there is not one available at this time. You may have been thinking of Dave Coffin’s Dcraw.c?

]]> By: oz http://photoshopnews.com/2005/04/24/information-about-adobe-dng/#comment-344 oz Mon, 25 Apr 2005 19:17:58 +0000 http://photoshopnews.com/?p=262#comment-344 i distinctly recall seeing an open-source DNG library release, which is now gone missing, and not listed in this resource list. while DNG spec is not a massive effort to implement, i would have preferred that the spec is accompanied by an open-source reference implementation, as is often done. i distinctly recall seeing an open-source DNG library release, which
is now gone missing, and not listed in this resource list. while DNG spec is not a massive effort to implement, i would have preferred
that the spec is accompanied by an open-source reference implementation, as is
often done.

]]>