On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 1:15 AM, Guido Vollbeding <gu...@jpegclub.org> wrote: > Hello Mathieu > > Thank you for question. > libjpeg is reference code, not faulty patchwork. > Everything is said in the README: > > There are currently distributions in circulation containing the name > "libjpeg" which claim to be a "derivative" or "fork" of the original > libjpeg, but don't have the features and are incompatible with formats > supported by actual IJG libjpeg distributions. Furthermore, they > violate the license conditions as described under LEGAL ISSUES above. > We have no sympathy for the release of misleading and illegal > distributions derived from obsolete code bases. > Don't use an obsolete code base! > > I mean, the original README in libjpeg, not that in the patchwork you > are talking about, which is one of the license violations. > > It seems that Bill Allombert is still one of the few sane people out > there, many others have apparently gone mad. > I don't care for the ignorant people. > > You may of course make a "turbo" version, I have nothing against it, > but NOT in the way mentioned. Take libjpeg with its current features > and make it "turbo" - that would be wonderful!
For reference: http://www.libjpeg-turbo.org/About/FUD As we can see, "the other camp" doesn't agree. I would like to avoid political/legal/off-topic discussions that doesn't belong to this bug report or LJT ITP. Thanks. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/canztujqkh5hv2zqjr_rvhhyqsicbnqghfathxeun0gpg_wx...@mail.gmail.com
