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

91–100 of 170 posts

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

#91

Post by drpossum »

morningsam wrote: post #77
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 LibreOffi…

Phoronix is the place to be for coverage of this type https://www.phoronix.com/news/HDMI-2.1-OSS-Rejected

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

#92

Post by megous »

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…

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.

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

#93

Post by hobofan »

lonjil wrote: post #75
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 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…

Something being behind a paywall and copyright being used to prevent its redistribution is one of the textbook definitions of "proprietary".

In almost all cases of standards you can implement those standards without reading the document, from an IP standpoint. From a practical standpoint it is often just not feasible to reverse-engineer everything without the original documentation, or worth it if you can't slap the trademarked name of the technology on it.

It may be possible that AMD could even implement an open source driver stack for HDMI and be legally in the clear. What they fear is more souring the relationship and losing access, so they don't risk it when they were told not to do that.

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

#94

Post by pedrocr »

lolinder wrote: post #87
pedrocr wrote: post #82

On a somewhat related note, it's very surprising how hard it is to get DisplayPort out of a USB-C connection. Although DP is natively there all the cheap adapters tend to be HDMI even though that requires extra hardware to create the complex HDMI signalling out of the DP native output. So although monitors tend to have DP inputs and now everything has DP outputs in the form of USB-C it's actually hard to connect the…

Maybe I'm missing something, but it looks to me like Amazon even creates their own off-brand USB-C to DisplayPort cable, so it doesn't seem like it's that hard. https://www.amazon.com/AmazonBasics-Aluminum-USB-C-DisplayPo... They also have an adapter: https://www.amazon.com/AmazonBasics-Aluminium-DisplayPort-Ad...

There are some options, particularly if you want just DisplayPort. If you want to have power as well for example pretty much all the cheap adapters are HDMI only. With HDMI there are many more options and of more reputable brands usually.

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

#95

Post by BigJ1211 »

addandsubtract wrote: post #56
sverhagen wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Could then just call it: HDMIY, no?

High Definition Make It Yourself

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

#97

Post by m-p-3 »

rekoil wrote: post #65
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.

Would be nice if everyone referred to a "non-compliant" HDMI as HDIY.

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

#98

Post by QuadmasterXLII »

happymellon wrote: post #71
QuadmasterXLII wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It was a moment in time

https://android.stackexchange.com/questions/143330/what-is-t... Etc

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

#99

Post by shultays »

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?

When I was working at a place that makes TVs, we were trying to reduce number of physical buttons to cut costs. I imagine HDMI just works and everything that has a display port probably also has an HDMI output

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

#100

Post by redox99 »

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.

I'm not talking about computers specifically. But as an HDMI replacement everywhere. It shouldn't be more expensive, I'm not saying having an additional port, but replacing one of the 4+ HDMI ports with a DP. I think it's cheaper in fact because it has no royalties. That's why GPUs pushed heavily for DP I believe. Nowadays GPUs usually come with 3 DPs and 1 HDMI.

Just throw one and if the ecosystem grows (like it did on PCs) then you keep replacing HDMI ports with DP ports.

Post reply on HN