Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-new-httpd-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 61670 invoked by uid 500); 18 Sep 2000 19:15:02 -0000 Mailing-List: contact new-httpd-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Delivered-To: mailing list new-httpd@apache.org Received: (qmail 61655 invoked from network); 18 Sep 2000 19:15:00 -0000 Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 20:14:40 +0100 (BST) From: James Sutherland X-Sender: jas88@dax.joh.cam.ac.uk To: new-httpd@apache.org Subject: Re: [Fwd: png icons for apache] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Rating: locus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N On Mon, 18 Sep 2000 TOKILEY@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 00-09-18 14:45:50 EDT, J. Sutherland writes. > > > thinking in terms of the GIFs in the Apache tarballs, though, which ARE > > simple files - do you agree with a period of "parallel operation" - GIFs > > and PNGs - then ditching the GIFs as and when we need to? > > No. To use your term... 'Why bother?' How about rephrasing that to why NOT bother? It's not as if it costs us anything - a few moments of time, and an extra couple of K on the tarball? Hardly a big deal either way. > Until there is some real reason to change formats .PNG will still > remain a 'backroom' graphics format and the GIF/PNG issues will > remain. Yes... I know... .PNG is actually better... but that and the > price of tea will get you to China. Joe Public doesn't know that and > doesn't see the difference ( or want to ). He doesn't need to. Look at the Validator WWW site - validator.w3.org. They do exactly what I'm advocating: GIFs and PNGs, and you get whichever one is more appropriate, thanks to Apache. > Is someone actively trying to sue Apache into royalty payments? Where > do they think the money will come from for the royalties, IBM? > Covalent? Brian Belhendorf? Does it matter? I just think we should offer the clients both. If they can use PNGs and we can supply them, why not do it? > I guess I'm just a little radical. If owners of GIF think they can > start squeezing some people for royalties and not others then I say > let them try. I can't think of a better test case for the lawyers to > have this out once and for all than for someone to be stupid enough to > try and press the Apache group itself into paying royalties for > using/distributing simple .GIF files. > > Bring it on. Get it over with, once and for all. > The case is weak and any good lawyer will have a field day. I'm not bothered either way, but why shouldn't we offer PNGs?? James.