ImageSharp VS DOOM-3-BFG

> High quality progressive decoding at reduced filesizes is a big positive for me.

This is really cool!

Honestly, I want to use regular progressive JPEGs for a current project of mine, but it seems that even that doesn't have support in all the tech stacks yet despite how long it's been around for, for example: https://github.com/SixLabors/ImageSharp/issues/449

Here's hoping that in the case of JPEG-XL this will be more commonplace!

Here's an example:

https://github.com/SixLabors/ImageSharp/blob/main/LICENSE#L2...

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33301518

Again, nothing stops someone from forking and maintaining.

Are you saying this is not legally enforceable? Because I am under the impression from my legal council it is. I can ask again to get more clarity.

ChatGPT is very good at being confidently incorrect. I asked it for some programming related thing and it gave me some code that used a class from a library as if it was generic, when it was not, and even made up some classes. You should also remember that things have since updated and things that might have been true back in 2020, may not be anymore. SixLabors.ImageSharp, for example has reworked some code since then and ChatGPT regularly messes up the methods that it uses, most notably Image.GetPixelSpan.

There is one in dot net too https://github.com/SixLabors/ImageSharp

ImageSharp is another option, but could have licence implications.

One example from the top of my head is ImageSharp.

Library users should come together and fork the last open source version (https://github.com/SixLabors/ImageSharp/tree/v2.1.3) and maintain that together. Just having a version still available, even if it's got no new features, may be enough to make the Six Labors reconsider their approach because why pay for a library that can mostly work for free?

Since .net doesn't yet support avif and neither does ImageSharp, files of this type just didn't have a MIME type available and trying to use them would result in a 404 error.

The Bethesda representative said that they do not publish which OSS libraries they use but that they comply with any notice requirements. I admit, the claim on my side is somewhat thin, but there is one third party library (Base64.cpp) in DOOM 3 BFG that requires notice and states:

Even idTech 3 used third party components as listed in the description here: https://github.com/id-Software/DOOM-3-BFG. Newer versions of idTech use Vulkan for rendering. For that, they are basically forced to included the header files of Vulkan which are licensed under Apache 2. So it has to be mentioned somewhere.

I guess you can still write valuable software, even more complex than most people can write, with simple (03) C++. Like Doom 3: https://github.com/id-Software/DOOM-3-BFG

> What you are describing

On the other hand, I believe what you are describing is the exact meaning of FUD. In that precise order: "in C++ they have serious consequences" is fear, "There are bugs in the code--probably in your code--right now" is uncertainty, and "Some might be CVEs" is doubt.

According to https://github.com/id-Software/DOOM-3-BFG

Doom 3 was released in 2004. The engine has come to be known as "Id Tech 4", and it's open source. Written mostly in C++, looks like.

Id Tech 4 is currently Open Source (GPL licensed)

I believe doom 3 source is published on github so people can have a look for themselves if they want.

Doom 3 is a perennial favorite for "most beautiful C++ codebase" lists [0]

[0] https://github.com/id-Software/DOOM-3-BFG