Interview with Don Marti 73
mpawlo writes "I just picked Don Marti's brain in a short interview published by Greplaw. Don Marti is the editor of LinuxJournal and the mastermind behind the Burnallgifs campaign. He has strong views on free software, software patentability and the freedom of the Internet. Marti should personally be featured in any encyclopedia under 'geektivism' and the brief interview may be of interest to Slashdotters not yet familiar with Mr Marti."
I love Don Marti! (Score:2, Funny)
Re:I love Don Marti! (Score:1)
Re:I love Don Marti! (Score:2)
Burn all gifs, huh? (Score:2)
Hypocrisy anyone?
Re:Burn all gifs, huh? (Score:2)
# 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.
I don't think the interview was about promoting the BurnAllGifs campaign, it was more about finding out what makes Don Marti tick.
Re:Burn all gifs, huh? (Score:1)
Re:Burn all gifs, huh? (Score:1)
Re:Burn all gifs, huh? (Score:2, Informative)
IE (for windows) and png support are two things I very rarely see in the same sentence unless poor is in there as well somewhere. Though I'm more annoyed by it's total lack of mng support than it half assed png support.
Re:Burn all gifs, huh? (Score:1)
Re:Burn all gifs, huh? (Score:4, Informative)
Unisys owns licensing rights to the LZW patent. They typically go to web site operators (large ones), and ask them to pay licensing fees, or prove that all the GIFs they serve came from licensed programs. Kinda creepy. Of course, none of the enforcement came until GIFs were widely used.
In response, a group of open source hackers wrote the png spec, which uses the gzip compression technique. Also, postscript and pdf added gzip compression (flate compression) in addition to LZW compression, so that people could make pdfs without worrying about patent licensing.
The GIF patent will expire in less than a year, I think. It is still WIDELY used. However, development has continued at full speed on png formats, and has halted on GIFs. Even when they become legal, the next generation of software will use pngs instead (because the DEVELOPMENT stopped, not because it "used to be patented").
Re:Burn all gifs, huh? (Score:3, Informative)
The GIF patent expires June 20, 2003 and is US patent 4,558,302.
Re:Burn all gifs, huh? (Score:1)
Linux Journal (Score:1)
Re:Linux Journal (Score:1)
Re:Don Marti? (Score:1)
Gifs post-unisys protection (Score:1, Interesting)
Cheers,
Nicholas
Re:Bullshit (Score:3, Informative)
I think the most critical aspect of that article occurs earlier, where it says
Nothing in this article should be regarded as legal counsel. If you require legal or other expert assistance, you should consult a professional advisor.
Also, the article is wrong. Unisys now claims that distributing GIFs requires making a copy of a file that requires the LZW algorithm. Thus, it is also patent protected. So far, they've done a pretty good business collecting fees from web site operators.
Offtopic, but... (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Offtopic, but... (Score:1)
Re:Totally incorrect (Score:1)
Re:Totally incorrect (Score:1)
Dude. Do you know what an acronym is? Have you ever heard of scuba diving? Scuba happens to be an acronym for "self contained underwater breathing apparatus." The only reason that everyone, or at least everyone that I know, pronounces it the same way is that the acronym forms a conveniet English word.
Now, on the other hand, the acronym PNG doesn't form a very convenient English word since it doesn't contain any vowels. Once again, perhaps you aren't aware, but every word in this language (except for the word nth) contains a vowel. Thus, there is no "correct" way to pronounce it. Likewise, for "gif", for the most part, English words beginning with a "gi" are pronounced with a hard "g", which would be pronounced just as the the "gi" in "gift" is.
So bottom line, get off our high fucking horse. You don't represent absolute truth, so don't act like it in your fucking sig. Even if you did, at least have the deceny to not post anonymously.
Ok, I'm now done educating you, you ignorant, self-righteous prick.
Re:Eh? (Score:1)
-Kevin
Re:Offtopic, but... (Score:2)
Re:Offtopic, but... (Score:1)
http://www.colorado.edu/~hyperlst/html-developers
I'm no expert on graphical formats (Score:2)
What would work?
(I'm not asking Don Marti, I read the header, unlike all the rest asking questions when it's actually a link to an interview that already took place. I'm asking the rest of you Slashdot readers. Just thought I'd clarify that. God I'm bored right now.)
Re:I'm no expert on graphical formats (Score:2)
Since 99% of my users are running IE, that's a bit annoying
Re:I'm no expert on graphical formats (Score:1)
Really a pity too. I was lucky enough to have a significant enough lack of IE users on my page to be able to use mng. The extra space saved by using mng instead of gif builds up surprisingly fast.
Re:I'm no expert on graphical formats (Score:1)
You could try using png format images. The libpng group provides a browser support reference [libpng.org].
For the images that require animation, you could look into the MNG/JNG format. A reference is available here [libpng.org]. Support does not seem to very widespread but that may not matter depending on the intended audience for your application.
Re:b4 it gets /.ed (Score:1)
Redundent I could see, but offtopic? It IS the topic!
curious george bush (Score:1)
Burn All Gifs Mini-HOWTO (Score:3, Informative)
I use ESR's gif2png [tuxedo.org] to convert my legacy GIF files to PNG for web use. I provide Solaris SPARC and x86 packages [drydog.com] (Linux packages are available elsewhere).
Don Marti? I thought I saw Don Martin (Score:1)
A few comments (Score:3, Insightful)
2) Quoting from the article:
I don't follow this. What MPEG patent licensing mess? There is none. If you want to use an algorithm developed by someone else, at great expense, you follow their rules. If you want to use their algorithm for free... then, I'm sorry, you'll just have to come up with your own algorithm. And when you're done, don't forget to give it away for free.
3) Uhhh... this guy has what qualifications to be talking about law and interpreting the Constitution? I didn't see anything in his bio about being a lawyer.
Re:A few comments (Score:2)
Oh please.
That boils down to "If you want to develop your own algorithm, you'd better make sure it has nothing in common with a million others developed at "great expense" or else follow their rules," which is an amazing hindrance to innovation. Furthermore, algorithms are mathematical constructs and should not be owned any more than arithmetical constructions can be owned.
And you have to be a constitutional scholar to interpret the constitution?? What is this, a secret priesthood where the word of god is written on stone tablets that only the scribes can interpret? Constitutional theorists spend their lives thinking about fine points and hard cases, but this ain't one of 'em. The intention and spirit of the references to the LIMITED monopoly over ideas in the constitution is clear enough for any of us who are bound to follow it to understand.
What's hard to understand is how money could have so thoroughly corrupted such a well-intentioned process.
You seem overly concerned with making sure people who spend a lot of money make a profit, and not nearly concerned enough that the intellectual commons of our society is not plundered by teh interests of capital.
Re:A few comments (Score:1)
Regarding the guarantee of profit, you are working from a very narrow mindset. I don't want to "find my own"..."implementation and patent it". Patents reduced the flexibility inventors have to make progress. Not only do I think I shouldn't, I don't think anyone should. It's like property rights over air or sunlight. If someone spends a lot of money developing a system to privatize the air in Pennsylvania so you couldn't breathe without a license, screw them- they spent their money on something that was going to mess with the commons, and far from being rewarded for their cash outlay they should be punished for attempting to steal our air. The fertile ground of the scientific exchange of ideas is not, admittedly, such an urgent every day need as air for most people, but the principle is the same. A patent robs people of 17 years worth of scientific advancement in the name of profit, and it's wrong.
Re:A few comments (Score:2)
This is one of the reasons why copyright is a better fit for software than patents: if you create something independently, without looking at another's code, you cannot infringe the copyright.
I don't know about the "Encyclopedia" (Score:1)
Nothing Found
Sorry, but nothing matching "geektivism" was found.
If you Log in you could create a "geektivism" node. If you don't already have an account, you can Create A New User...
Nor Don Marti:
Here's the stuff we found when you searched for "don marti"
[long list of non-don marti things snipped]
If you Log in you could create a "don marti" node. If you don't already have an account, you can Create A New User...
Maybe someone could log in and fix that, I never quite got into that whole everything2.com scene.
I used to work with Don Marti! (Score:1)
An Interview with a Dry Martini? (Score:2)
If he hates Compuserve GIFs so much... (Score:1)
Why doesn't the Don just make them an offer they can't refuse?
Ali
See him live! Feb. 4th (Score:2)
Last Post! (Score:1)
like Microsoft." - Some AOL'er.
"To this end we dedicate ourselves..." -Don
-- From the sig of "Don", don@cs.byu.edu
- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...