You have seen the qualifier “if anyone’s interested”? He is basically saying that he is open to collaboration to make it happen, if anyone else wishes. He isn’t demanding, not even asking for anything.
I noticed, just asking why. You disagree with me asking so the same question to you: why?
Why would I want DNG over proprietary raw? Sounds like “proprietary” was something positive.
It definitely IS something positive unless the DNG comes out of the camera itself instead of out of a converter. A proprietary raw (whether PEF,NEF,CR2 or any other) is a true immutable “digital negative” of an image, something which DNG promised to be but didn’t make good on.
DNG is an open format, and if vendors were using it developers of OSS raw developers wouldn’t need to go through the trouble of reverse engineering whenever a new format comes out (see e.g. the exiv2/CR3 situation).
But not every open format needs to be successful, does it? ODF is open but get ignored by millions of MsOffice users every day.
I don’t understand this knee jerk reaction to anything related to Adobe. Sure, it’s annoying that the majority of users keeps using an expensive lock-in software, that in some aspects is probably technically inferior to open alternatives.
I don’t give a rodent’s behind about people using “expensive lock-in software” (your words, not mine) and the only one having a knee-jerk reaction to Adobe seems to be your good self. I merely asked “Why would Linux users want to use Adobe compatible XMP sidecars if they do not use Adobe software for editing?” which is a perfect valid question - why don’t you answer it?
However reality is, it’s there, people are using it and will keep using it. Acting repulsive to anything related to that ecosystems means pushing away a whole lot of people (who might not even have a choice due to job/industry standards).
Hey man, I have zero problems with people using it if they want to. And just insulting be by accusing me of “acting repulsive” is really uncalled for. And “pushing away a whole lot of people” from what exactly? From using this guy’s software? Why would I do thàt?
What I do share is the concern about lack of license, which makes this tool basically useless (users are dependent on you keeping it free and up-to-date, no-one could pick up the code and continue if you didn’t). If you are concerned about monetizing, go copyleft + commercial license. Or at the very least use something like CC BY-NC 3.0. Even though that’s still not free and problematic in some respects, at least it would be possible to modify your code and continue distributing it under the same license.
See? And that is where I draw the line of believability. This guy has all the right to keep his software under wraps, there is absolutely nothing against that at all. I am not against using commercial software, provided it has a decent price, gets free bug- and security fixes and allows for a reasonably priced upgrade path. I have paid for and use NeatImage for Linux and thoroughly enjoy that software.
As I wrote many, many years ago to Gabor Horváth, the original author of the, then not-free, Rawtherapee converter:
“I fully understand it is not brought out under the GPL. I would also understand and respect your right to say no to this request.”
when I asked his permission to include RT on a Linux LiveCD (PCLOS DPE). He was gracious enough to allow it but also wrote back to me saying:
“Thank you for the polite mail. These days I received lots of rough mails from open source partisans, at the end I felt they want to steal my intellectual property.”
That was on April 14th, 2008! So don’t come here, more than 12 years later, with guns blazing as if I were some kind of open-source vigilante, accusing me of “knee-jerk reaction” and “acting repulsive” because you can actually take a long hike!
).
. But that doesn’t matter, to me it is anyway a great piece of software. Perhaps one time you will get another zoom function to work, but anyway I like it and will use it.