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

61–70 of 170 posts

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

#61

Post by fps_doug »

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.

> 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's the fact that they have access to the official HDMI 2.1 spec, implemented that, but call it something else, which I could imagine they forbid in some contract, would things change if some random hacker with too much time on their hands reversed the protocol by sniffing it, implementing it for the AMD driver (again without calling it HDMI)?

Too bad the HDMI forum doesn't feature an email address on their home page, I'd have loved to tell them what I think of them.

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

#63

Post by QuadmasterXLII »

delta_p_delta_x wrote: post #48
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?

> proprietary formats and specifications such as ... DisplayPort DisplayPort is not proprietary; it is a VESA standard. > Lightning If you owned any iPhone between 2012 and the present, you had to use Lightning, without choice. And for some inexplicable reason, Americans love iPhones.

People keep iphones for a long time. My unfair internal impression is that android phones still have micro-usb and allow any app to change your lockscreen to porn ads without identifying _which_ app made the change, because when I switched to iOS that was true, and I’ve only had two iphones so it can’t have been that long. (In reality it’s been eight years)

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

#64

Post by echoangle »

Someone wrote: post #59
echoangle wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 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.

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

#65

Post by rekoil »

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.

Sounds about right, Flipper Devices just released the Video Game Module which has a very recognisable port that is never referred to by it's more common name anywhere.

Of course, they don't do HDMI 2.1 or anything advanced like that, but I guess the reason for the name not appearing anywhere is the same as you're discussing here.

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

#66

Post by Dalewyn »

redox99 wrote: post #62

Luckily with mid and high end monitors, DisplayPort is the standard. I don't understand why TVs don't come with even a single DisplayPort though. Maybe they are paid off by the HDMI forum?

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.

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

#67

Post by raarts »

Dalewyn wrote: post #66
redox99 wrote: post #62

Luckily with mid and high end monitors, DisplayPort is the standard. I don't understand why TVs don't come with even a single DisplayPort though. Maybe they are paid off by the HDMI forum?

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.

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

#68

Post by fps_doug »

redox99 wrote: post #62

Luckily with mid and high end monitors, DisplayPort is the standard. I don't understand why TVs don't come with even a single DisplayPort though. Maybe they are paid off by the HDMI forum?

What I always liked about HDMI is that it's basically backwards compatible all the way to DVI, just using passive adapters. I think that's the reason why HDMI dominates on laptops, where you're expected to move around and use projectors, which could then be very old and only have DVI inputs, and it "just works" with a plain old adapter. You could even go the other way round from a DVI output to a modern HDMI projector using the very same adapter, but I think laptops pretty much skipped DVI and went from VGA to HDMI. So in practice it doesn't really matter, especially with DP++ being supported by almost every device, which effectively gives you HDMI output using an almost passive adapter.

But still, I like it. :-)

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

#69

Post by goosedragons »

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.

Which all still have HDMI ports. It's pretty rare for a laptop to have DP over HDMI. Even USB C using DP alt mode is easier and cheaper to convert to HDMI. You really have to hunt for a hub with DP.

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

#70

Post by orangeboats »

QuadmasterXLII wrote: post #63
delta_p_delta_x wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> proprietary formats and specifications such as ... DisplayPort DisplayPort is not proprietary; it is a VESA standard. > Lightning If you owned any iPhone between 2012 and the present, you had to use Lightning, without choice. And for some inexplicable reason, Americans love iPhones.

People keep iphones for a long time. My unfair internal impression is that android phones still have micro-usb and allow any app to change your lockscreen to porn ads without identifying _which_ app made the change, because when I switched to iOS that was true, and I’ve only had two iphones so it can’t have been that long. (In reality it’s been eight years)

8 years is a long time in tech. Type-C ports are now commonplace in the Android world. The modern Android ecosystem is no longer the chaotic mess we saw during the Android 2.x era -- its permission system is a lot more complete now, and many features are locked down by default unless you explicit grant the applications permissions to use them.
Post reply on HN