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

51–60 of 170 posts

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

#51

Post by delta_p_delta_x »

dtx1 wrote: post #12
zekica wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't miss it, DisplayPort is a really good replacement.

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.

> 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.

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

#52

Post by croes »

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.

Reminds me of

>Video Out port: DVI-D signal in 640х480 px, 60 Hz. The port supports a well-known video standard that we can't name due to copyright limitations The first letter is H, and the last one is I.

https://blog.flipper.net/introducing-video-game-module-power...

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

#53

Post by helsinkiandrew »

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?

You can, but you need monitor/graphics chip companies to use it. These are mostly the members/creators of the HDMI standard, they are also probably the best able to create a standard that others will use:

https://hdmiforum.org/members/

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

#54

Post by mtndrew1 »

nonrandomstring wrote: post #49
hobofan wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> In practice you'll have to construct a financially sustainable organization Here's a list of just the best known ones [0]. There are literally hundreds of thousands of open standards for everything from communications to mechanical engineering, to packaging to chemical formulas.... They make the world go round. No piece of technology you use today, especially the Internet would function without open standards and s…

[dead]

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

#55

Post by bayindirh »

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.

Then, you can't get HDCP keys and HDCP IP on that device, so trying to do that opens cans of technical and legal worms.

Not nice. Neither worms, nor HDCP forum.

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

#56

Post by addandsubtract »

sverhagen wrote: post #33
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)

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".

HDIY

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

#58

Post by hobofan »

nonrandomstring wrote: post #49
hobofan wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> In practice you'll have to construct a financially sustainable organization Here's a list of just the best known ones [0]. There are literally hundreds of thousands of open standards for everything from communications to mechanical engineering, to packaging to chemical formulas.... They make the world go round. No piece of technology you use today, especially the Internet would function without open standards and s…

There is next to nothing "open" (if we go with "open" = "open access") about most of these organizations.

As a fun experiment, I went through the first 10 entries of the Wikipedia list. Only one of them[0] produces _open_ standards, which they have available for free download. For the rest of them the "standards" link on their website either directs to a webstore to purchase individual standards or to a membership signup.

I very much recognize that the world we live in is driven by standards. But while those standards drive the world forward, I think it's also important for industries (and governments) to recognize that the way their standards bodies operate in a way that's almost fundamentally incompatible with the forces that drive innovation in the software world (that they often proclaim that they also want in their industry).

Building a standards body as you point out isn't difficult and has been done many times over. What's difficult is building an _open_ standards body, which as of today looks like a mostly unsolved problem (same as open source funding).

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

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

#59

Post by Someone »

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.

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 not the Apple Logo or other Apple-owned graphic symbol/logo) in a referential phrase on packaging or promotional/advertising materials to describe that the third party product is compatible with the referenced Apple product or technology, provided they comply with the following requirements.

a. The Apple word mark is not part of the product name.

b. The Apple word mark is used in a referential phrase such as “runs on,” “for use with,” “for,” or “compatible with.”

c. The Apple word mark appears less prominent than the product name.

d. The product is in fact compatible with, or otherwise works with, the referenced Apple product.

e. The reference to Apple does not create a sense of endorsement, sponsorship, or false association with Apple or Apple products or services.

f. The use does not show Apple or its products in a false or derogatory light.”

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

#60

Post by redox99 »

bayindirh wrote: post #55
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.

Then, you can't get HDCP keys and HDCP IP on that device, so trying to do that opens cans of technical and legal worms. Not nice. Neither worms, nor HDCP forum.

Lack of HDCP is a feature in my eyes.
Post reply on HN