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

71–80 of 170 posts

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

#71

Post by happymellon »

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)

> allow any app to change your lockscreen to porn ads

I have never heard of such a thing. Was it a common problem for you?

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

#72

Post by mschuster91 »

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…

> 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.

They actually do at the bottom of [1].

[1] https://hdmiforum.org/about/

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

#73

Post by heresie-dabord »

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…

> In practice you'll have to construct a financially sustainable organization that is able to motivate all interested parties

Translation by obsolete sandwich-fed LLM:

In practice, zealously litigious organisations will assemble corporate lawyers in a room to compute profits and to define access constraints for consumers.

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

#74

Post by bayindirh »

redox99 wrote: post #60
bayindirh wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'd also prefer my cables to carry clear signal unless I encrypt them, but content creators feel that its their duties to protect us from "teh pirates" (I mean their money from us).

On a serious note, I don't believe that these technologies prevent a determined person from copying anything. However, I'd rather have all the features on board rather than not being able to use them when required.

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

#75

Post by lonjil »

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…

> 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.

Standards documents being behind a paywall is not at all the same thing as something being proprietary or needing to be licensed. ISO charges for standards documents to pay their administrative costs, you can implement those standards without paying any extra money. And if you happen to have an alternative way of implementing the standard without reading its document, that is fine too. If you implement JPEG XL by studying its open source reference implementation, that is A-OK.

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

#76

Post by spintin »

fps_doug wrote: post #68
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 projecto…

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.

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

#77

Post by morningsam »

drpossum wrote: post #34

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…

You're right, but on the other hand, I like that they mentioned DisplayPort as a viable alternative that doesn't suffer from the problem at hand. Not too thrilled about the exact phrasing, describing DP as "the likely best option", which is too opinionated for my taste. But I'd appreciate if other publications did this, so that e.g. every article about Microsoft's subscription model for Office 365 mentioned LibreOffice, every article about Steam users losing access to some of their games mentioned GOG, and so on. Especially when the alternatives are not well-known among one's readers.

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

#78

Post by reaperducer »

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.

Only if you you define recently popular as "More than yesterday, but still a rounding error."

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

#79

Post by fifteen1506 »

anthk wrote: post #25

The computer related companies should have given the middle finger to the media Mafiaa long ago and tell them to STFU if they ever wanted their content to be displayed in a computer with PC based standards and not MPEG. Once you get a libre OS you can dump the content of the BUS or fake whatever HDMI hardware out there to get pristine audio and video frames. Also, the current Hollywood movies are very subpar compared…

Sure. Try dumping SkyShowTime shows/movies then. (refuses to run on GNU/Linux).

The average power user won't be able to run SkyShowTime on Linux. The idea is locking everyone on Windows, OS X or Linux with Secure Boot and verifiable boot chain if you want to watch movies or TV shows.

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

#80

Post by tener »

dagw wrote: post #21
tener wrote: post #17

What is stopping AMD from distributing a closed source binary blob along with selling the access to proprietary source code for $1?

The source code is not a clean room re-implementation of the the HDMI 2.1 spec and as such contains IP owned in one way or another by the HDMI Forum. This would almost certainly preclude them from distributing source code to non HDMI Forum members under any license according to what I could glean from the article.

Ah, thank you, this is interesting. So in a way the original IP is kind of poison which forever taints their source code, diminishing what they can do with it.
Post reply on HN