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

31–40 of 170 posts

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

#31

Post by toxik »

mglz wrote: post #29
salviati wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds like you're not aware of the reason. I personally believe that the reson is that there are many entities pushing against open standards since they would make copying easier and DRM harder.

This is correct. That's also why there is an ongoing trend to push users into walled gardens and onto hardware they do not control. Or as Cory Doctorow calls it the "war on general-purpose computing"

It's a battle for the control of the device. The ideal setup for the big corpos is that we do not own our devices, but we rent them, and they can then charge arbitrarily for different uses of them. This was what AT&T did with phones back in the day.

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

#32

Post by aethertron »

rickdeckard wrote: post #19
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.

Also, that someone without contracts would probably need to call it different than "HDMI", because the term itself is trademarked and only licensed to Members (like "Wi-Fi" and "Bluetooth"). So a different term would be needed (like "WLAN" or "BT" is used by non-members)

Trademarks are there to protect consumers from dishonestly represented goods. If I buy some display tech marketed as "HDMI-compatible" but unlicensed, and it works with my other HDMI equipment (say, its maker reverse-engineered the HDMI spec), no one has been defrauded.

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

#33

Post by sverhagen »

rickdeckard wrote: post #19
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.

Also, that someone without contracts would probably need to call it different than "HDMI", because the term itself is trademarked and only licensed to Members (like "Wi-Fi" and "Bluetooth"). So a different term would be needed (like "WLAN" or "BT" is used by non-members)

As much as we can talk about HDMI here, as it's a name in the public domain, wouldn't someone else be able to use that kind of speech to make a "HDMI-compatible" implementation? "IBM compatible" seemed to be a designation, in the day, that didn't run up against legal trouble?

Maybe that's what you already meant by "calling it different than".

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

#34

Post by drpossum »

Ars Technica has to be the most careless tech news outlet and I stopped reading them long ago because of how much they just get factually wrong because of woefully inexperienced writers and to grab attention.

Their first sentence is "Any Linux user trying to send the highest-resolution images to a display at the fastest frame rate is out of luck for the foreseeable future, at least when it comes to an HDMI connection" but that's plainly not true. Hardware with closed source drivers, such as the standard nvidia ones do support those because they don't have this legal limitation. Then they even end it with that possibility of closed source AMD and didn't bother even asking themselves if anyone else has done this.

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

#35

Post by echoangle »

rickdeckard wrote: post #19
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.

Also, that someone without contracts would probably need to call it different than "HDMI", because the term itself is trademarked and only licensed to Members (like "Wi-Fi" and "Bluetooth"). So a different term would be needed (like "WLAN" or "BT" is used by non-members)

I am pretty sure that the term being a trademark doesnt stop me from mentioning it when describing compatibility. Do you think apple could sue me if i release a program and say "This software is compatible with macOS"? As long as I am not impersonating them, using the Logo etc., they probably can not stop me.

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

#36

Post by dtx1 »

Gare wrote: post #20
dtx1 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the connector good be better in terms of reversibility and none of that weird locking it has but it's an incredible technical achievement. And it seems perpetually ahead of HDMI in terms of features and Bandwidth.

Locking is a feature, not a bug

Locking in general yes, the specific implementation of locks on the DP Plug are annoying.

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

#37

Post by hobofan »

DeathArrow wrote: post #26

The question is why do we use proprietary formats and specifications such as HDMI, DisplayPort, Thunderbolt, Lightning. Aren't we able to create and use open standards?

> Aren't we able to create and use open standards?

In theory, sure. In practice you'll have to construct a financially sustainable organization that is able to motivate all interested parties to chip in and is also able to certify the implementation and at the same time also doesn't fall victim to internal corruption (e.g. high C-level compensation making it unsustainable). I think there are few-to-no precedents for that in the open source space in general, and even less when it comes to standards body organizations for maintaining a standard at that level of complexity.

In most domains proprietary specifications form the backbone of everything. A lot of governments refer to ISO standards, which by default are not open access.

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

#38

Post by DeathArrow »

salviati wrote: post #28
DeathArrow wrote: post #26

The question is why do we use proprietary formats and specifications such as HDMI, DisplayPort, Thunderbolt, Lightning. Aren't we able to create and use open standards?

It sounds like you're not aware of the reason. I personally believe that the reson is that there are many entities pushing against open standards since they would make copying easier and DRM harder.

Limiting choice and freedom is never a good answer to an issue.

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

#39

Post by ysofunny »

hobofan wrote: post #37
DeathArrow wrote: post #26

The question is why do we use proprietary formats and specifications such as HDMI, DisplayPort, Thunderbolt, Lightning. Aren't we able to create and use open standards?

> Aren't we able to create and use open standards? In theory, sure. In practice you'll have to construct a financially sustainable organization that is able to motivate all interested parties to chip in and is also able to certify the implementation and at the same time also doesn't fall victim to internal corruption (e.g. high C-level compensation making it unsustainable). I think there are few-to-no precedents for…

meaning that in practice we would have to fundamentally tweak how capitalism (maybe?) works somehow

in the mean time keep paying taxes, rent, subscription, and utility bills.

i'm not even sure it's capitalism that needs to get modified? maybe it's something about how private/public property works that is cleary off the mark and needs updates?

I'd argue that in the internet specifically, open sourced implementations of the protocols are the backbone of everything not closed proprietary specs; aren't most internet specifications open?

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

#40

Post by ysofunny »

echoangle wrote: post #35
rickdeckard wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, that someone without contracts would probably need to call it different than "HDMI", because the term itself is trademarked and only licensed to Members (like "Wi-Fi" and "Bluetooth"). So a different term would be needed (like "WLAN" or "BT" is used by non-members)

I am pretty sure that the term being a trademark doesnt stop me from mentioning it when describing compatibility. Do you think apple could sue me if i release a program and say "This software is compatible with macOS"? As long as I am not impersonating them, using the Logo etc., they probably can not stop me.

i'm pretty sure apple would and could sue you if you do that.

but it really depends on how much attention you get

gotta keep an eye on the nintendo emulator lawsuit.... the war on general purpose computation carries on

Post reply on HN