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

131–140 of 170 posts

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

#131

Post by mcv »

rickdeckard wrote: post #16
BillyTheMage wrote: post #2

> you can't make an open source HDMI 2.1 driver because some people said so I don't understand. Fuck whatever committee said whatever crap. Open source is open source. Just make the damn driver and give the suits 2 middle fingers.

As a Member of HDMI-Forum AMD would surely break its Forum Membership contract by open-sourcing their implementation of a specification restricted to Members. Also, "HDMI" itself is a trademark with usage only allowed to its Members (like "Wi-Fi"), so even if a non-Member would do an open-source HDMI-implementation against the will of the HDMI-Forum, he would likely not be allowed to call it "HDMI" (like "WLAN" is us…

Yeah, I think someone other than them would have to write that driver. But it's possible nobody who has the freedom to do so, has the knowledge to do so.

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

#132

Post by delta_p_delta_x »

dtx1 wrote: post #121
delta_p_delta_x wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And it seems perpetually ahead of HDMI in terms of features and Bandwidth. Not for the past few years. Although DP 2.0 has been 'released', there are no products actually shipping with it, and in practice DP 1.4 is the latest standard. DP 1.4 can't transmit 3840×2160 at 4:4:4 144 Hz without Display Stream Compression (DSC). HDMI 2.0 can.

> Although DP 2.0 has been 'released', there are no products actually shipping with it Here's a GPU with DisplayPort 2.1 https://www.mindfactory.de/product_info.php/16GB-Sapphire-Ra... Here's a Display with DisplayPort 2.1 and higher Resolution&Refresh Rate than you specified https://www.mindfactory.de/product_info.php/57Zoll--144-78cm...

That monitor was released not three months ago; I was describing the 99.99999% case. DP 2.0 is rare enough that an article[1] was produced this year about its scarcity.

[1]: https://tftcentral.co.uk/articles/when-is-displayport-2-1-go...

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

#133

Post by ZiiS »

fps_doug wrote: post #61
ZiiS wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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…

There is a contract between AMD and HDMI Forum covering the licence to use the logo. We don't know the wording, and I am sure it is thousands of pages of dense legalise; but it can literally say: "We promise not release a Linux driver compatible with the spec.".

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

#134

Post by hnfong »

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'm pretty sure your legal analysis here is overly-simplistic, but we don't need to get into that.

Going back to the original topic, if somebody is trying to release open source drivers for HDMI (or a protocol compatible with HDMI), obviously trademark infringement is a possibility since both are in the exact same business. So even if you're right (which I don't think so), your argument doesn't apply.

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

#135

Post by spintin »

ghusbands wrote: post #110
spintin wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I recently discovered you cannot pass 75Hz over DVI -> HDMI -> DVI! For some reason the bandwidth is too low? So for 60Hz there is interop. but for 75Hz you need a thick DVI cable.

HDMI currently supports up to 144Hz. Even HDMI 1.4 (2009) could reach 120Hz. However, compatibility is hit and miss in general. You may have had luck replacing one or more cables or adapters, but switching to displayport is likely to get the best results, anyway.

[flagged]

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

#136

Post by ZiiS »

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.

A lot of those $1mil dollar scopes run Linux and connect to fast, high resolution displays; some of them are made by companies not always in love with US licensing.

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

#137

Post by echoangle »

hnfong wrote: post #134
echoangle wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'm pretty sure your legal analysis here is overly-simplistic, but we don't need to get into that. Going back to the original topic, if somebody is trying to release open source drivers for HDMI (or a protocol compatible with HDMI), obviously trademark infringement is a possibility since both are in the exact same business. So even if you're right (which I don't think so), your argument doesn't apply.

Being in the same business does not make it trademark infringement. Ubuntu could also advertise "This OS can run software for Windows by using WINE" without infringing on Microsoft's trademark, because they aren't acting under the trademark. Trademarks exist so you can't sell your product under the established name of another company and profit from their reputation or ruin it by selling bad products. Just mentioning the name to state a fact is not forbidden. Just writing a driver and distributing it with the claim "HDMI-compatible" is not trademark infringement. They problem in OP's article is that AMD has a contract with the HDMI Forum.

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

#138

Post by hnfong »

echoangle wrote: post #137
hnfong wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty sure your legal analysis here is overly-simplistic, but we don't need to get into that. Going back to the original topic, if somebody is trying to release open source drivers for HDMI (or a protocol compatible with HDMI), obviously trademark infringement is a possibility since both are in the exact same business. So even if you're right (which I don't think so), your argument doesn't apply.

Being in the same business does not make it trademark infringement. Ubuntu could also advertise "This OS can run software for Windows by using WINE" without infringing on Microsoft's trademark, because they aren't acting under the trademark. Trademarks exist so you can't sell your product under the established name of another company and profit from their reputation or ruin it by selling bad products. Just mentioning…

My comment does not contradict anything you say here.

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

#139

Post by CalRobert »

ttyyzz wrote: post #6
CalRobert wrote: post #3

I still miss DVI.

The connector (resp Port) was too chunky for laptops and you didnt get sound over dvi, but other than that it worked just Fine each and every time. Never had issues upgrading stuff from VGA to DVI in an industrial Environment back then.

I actually like not having sound in the same cable, it has generally made life more complicated. But my use case could be different from others.

Even DVI had HDCP though, so it too was flawed :-( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-bandwidth_Digital_Content...

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

#140

Post by fps_doug »

megous wrote: post #119
fps_doug wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's hypothetical. There is no difference between those two scenarios, we could also just assume the hacker pulled it out of their ass...
Post reply on HN