Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

HDMI Forum does not allow an open source implementation of the HDMI 2.1 spec

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 170 posts

Re: HDMI Forum does not allow an open source implementation of the HDMI 2.1 spec

#111

Post by ndespres »

pedrocr wrote: post #82

On a somewhat related note, it's very surprising how hard it is to get DisplayPort out of a USB-C connection. Although DP is natively there all the cheap adapters tend to be HDMI even though that requires extra hardware to create the complex HDMI signalling out of the DP native output. So although monitors tend to have DP inputs and now everything has DP outputs in the form of USB-C it's actually hard to connect the…

I was pleasantly surprised that my new Dell monitor connects with USB-C cable to to my laptop, and then lets me daisy chain another older Dell monitor off of the first one with a DisplayPort cable. I’ve got power and 2 monitors, plus a full USB-C hub, with just 1 cable into the laptop. So at least Dell has figured it out.

Re: HDMI Forum does not allow an open source implementation of the HDMI 2.1 spec

#112

Post by dgfitz »

echoangle wrote: post #64
Someone wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course they could sue you, and so could I. Neither of us would win, though. I because I don’t hold the trademark, they because they explicitly allow you to do that. Like any big company, they have guidelines outlining permitted use. Apple’s page ( https://www.apple.com/legal/intellectual-property/guidelines... ) says: “2. Compatibility: Developers may use Apple, Macintosh, iMac, or any other Apple word mark (but n…

Ok sure, they could sue me, but they would not win. Do you think they would win if they had not explicitely allowed that usage? I don't have a source but I am very sure that you can't stop someone from using your trademark, the trademark only protects the use in business, i.e. me selling a OS called "macOS". Just mentioning the name is no trademark infringement.

I do know, for example, that sports talk radio shows aren’t allowed to use the term “Super Bowl”

Re: HDMI Forum does not allow an open source implementation of the HDMI 2.1 spec

#113

Post by Uvix »

emersion wrote: post #57

A possible workaround for users is to use an active HDMI adapter, e.g. a USB-C dock or DisplayPort → HDMI converter.

Last I checked those converters do not support HDMI 2.1 features like VRR. If the end output is HDMI 2.0 you might as well skip the middleman.

Re: HDMI Forum does not allow an open source implementation of the HDMI 2.1 spec

#114

Post by phkahler »

raarts wrote: post #67
Dalewyn wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people don't connect a computer to their TV, assuming they even have a computer at all. And assuming they do, they all have HDMI anyway. As for everything else most people would connect to their TV, they all have HDMI and precisely none have DisplayPort. Given that, supporting DisplayPort is an unnecessary expenditure on bill of materials and labor for TV manufacturers.

It’s a recently popular thing to use a tv as monitor.

>> It’s a recently popular thing to use a tv as monitor.

I picked up a 55" curved 4K about 5 years ago for use as a monitor. Now I keep my desk in the living room, so I use it as a TV too (have to move the chair). Curved TV is kind of dumb, but huge curved "monitors" are awesome. You can't find curved TVs any more, and wide curved monitors don't have the height to double as a TV.

Re: HDMI Forum does not allow an open source implementation of the HDMI 2.1 spec

#115

Post by fps_doug »

megous wrote: post #92
fps_doug wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> AMD obviously needs to license the logo for their GPU boxes This poses an interesting question, maybe some of the hobby-lawyers on HN like to chime in and post heir theories :o) Let's assume they print that Logo on their box, call it HDMI in their Windows drivers, but don't do so in their Linux drivers, while it's still a spec-compliant implementation. Would that pose a potential legal problem, and if so why? If it…

You don't just sniff a 48Gbit/s protocol as a random hacker. That's not what happens in the real world. A real-time scope that could do that is in the $1mil dollar range. At best a random hacker will reverse engineer the binary driver enough to make something work in some capacity.

Sure, but this is a hypothetical scenario, focusing on the legal aspects.

Re: HDMI Forum does not allow an open source implementation of the HDMI 2.1 spec

#116

Post by Uvix »

geraldhh wrote: post #104
emersion wrote: post #57

A possible workaround for users is to use an active HDMI adapter, e.g. a USB-C dock or DisplayPort → HDMI converter.

are you implying that DP-HDMI cables have some active components in it that modifies the signal?

Yes, some of them do. “DisplayPort++” ports support passive HDMI converters, while “pure” DisplayPort outputs do not.

Re: HDMI Forum does not allow an open source implementation of the HDMI 2.1 spec

#117

Post by phkahler »

ZiiS wrote: post #15
dark-star wrote: post #4

If I understand it correctly, you can do that, but you cannot call it "HDMI compliant" or otherwise use the HDMI trademark.

Someone without contracts with the HDMI Forum can probably release a working driver. However, AMD obviously needs to license the logo for their GPU boxes and their legal team have decided this prevents them releasing any source code based on the private specification regardless of what the code is called.

>> However, AMD obviously needs to license the logo for their GPU boxes...

It's not just that, it's about playing nice so they can have access to the next version of the spec if one comes along.

Re: HDMI Forum does not allow an open source implementation of the HDMI 2.1 spec

#119

Post by megous »

fps_doug wrote: post #115
megous wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't just sniff a 48Gbit/s protocol as a random hacker. That's not what happens in the real world. A real-time scope that could do that is in the $1mil dollar range. At best a random hacker will reverse engineer the binary driver enough to make something work in some capacity.

Sure, but this is a hypothetical scenario, focusing on the legal aspects.

Legal aspects of something that can never happen? Why?

Try legal aspects of reverse engineering a binary driver. That's more realistic.

Re: HDMI Forum does not allow an open source implementation of the HDMI 2.1 spec

#120

Post by oynqr »

geraldhh wrote: post #104
emersion wrote: post #57

A possible workaround for users is to use an active HDMI adapter, e.g. a USB-C dock or DisplayPort → HDMI converter.

are you implying that DP-HDMI cables have some active components in it that modifies the signal?

Yes. There is dual-mode Displayport which works with passive adapters, but I've never actually seen it and type c doesn't support it at all.
Post reply on HN