Yes but Malik still sounds like an idiot. A DNG is a specific file format that happens to mean digital negative, but he means RAW. DNG is a proprietary raw format from Adobe. And no we don't call our RAW files "digital negatives".

> DNG is a proprietary raw format

That's misleading. DNG is patented by Adobe, but it's also an open, specified format, i.e. it's not "proprietary" in the sense of "can only be opened/used if you pay Adobe money or use/buy their products" which is what people are generally implying when they use the term "proprietary".[0]

DNG is a lot like Adobe's PDF format: owned and managed by Adobe, but with an open specification than anyone can implement/use. They even offer a free license to the DNG "patent", should that deter anyone. That said, unlike PDF, it has not (yet) become an ISO standard, although Adobe has indicated that they would like to see that happen.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Negative

It is a particular implementation of the RAW format, and specifically listed as "open, non-free". Which I would think most people would consider proprietary.

I could be wrong though. Can I write and sell software that reads and writes DNG format without having to sign an agreement or pay Adobe money?

> Can I write and sell software that reads and writes DNG format without having to sign an agreement or pay Adobe money?

I believe the answer is: yes, you can. The DNG patent license is here: https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/digital-negative.html

You do not need to "sign anything" or "pay Adobe money" to make use of it. It's no different (in terms of usage) than someone open sourcing API documentation with an Apache license (or whatever).

Looking at the patent license, it applies "solely to permit the reading and writing of image files that comply with the DNG Specification". So if you try to create a derivative/modified format based on DNG for whatever reason, the patent license won't apply since the new format would not comply with the specification. (Though that doesn't necessarily mean there's actually a patent threat - hard to say without research what actual patents Adobe owns that apply to the specification, and when they expire or expired.) Also, the specification document itself is not under an open copyright license, so the spec for the modified format would have to be written from scratch (though it could refer to the original).

Not sure if there is much reason to fork the DNG spec in practice, but still the situation is fairly different from "open sourcing API documentation with an Apache license".

That seems fair though. When it comes to the DNG standard, you can use all this stuff freely. When it comes to another standard, make your own. I wouldn't call it proprietary.

I own both Canon and Nikon bodies and covert everything to DNG as a permanent storage format. Some cameras (Leica!) use DNG as their native format. If he's simplifying for the masses, its a simplification, but not much different from how I actually take photos.

He's not simplifying, he's trying to sound like he understands the material better than he does.

I know that, but it's just one particular brand of raw image format. arw, cr2, crw etc. are also raw formats. I don't hear photographers ever speak of "shooting digital negative" -- you say "shooting raw."