| ▲ | mahkoh 3 days ago | ||||||||||||||||
VESA makes you pay $5000 to get legal access to the DisplayPort standard. That is not the issue here. | |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | ethin 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||
It is part of the issue here. This specific post is about the HDMI forum having an insanely restrictive NDA, but the broader problem of SDOs charging obscene amounts of money for what amounts to trivially reproduceable digital documents (or taking other measures to do everything they can to seal the standards from the public unless your willing to pay the obscene fees or <insert other absurd measure here>) is relevant to this post, and this comment, since the HDMI forum is doing exactly this kind of gatekeeping; it only differs in form, but not function. | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | TheAmazingRace 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||
Indeed. I'm pretty sure the issue is that the HDMI Consortium wants some kind of royalty for each device sold with a proper HDMI designation, whereas VESA doesn't care if you sell one device or a million devices with DisplayPort. You owe them nothing extra beyond the initial legal access fee. Oh yeah, and the burdensome NDA that the HDMI Consortium requires its partners to agree to is another serious problem for the Linux driver. | |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | VerifiedReports 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | ||||||||||||||||
Another example of something that shouldn't be accepted as a standard. If you want to be a standard, then the spec must be published to the public. DUH. It's sad what people put up with now. | |||||||||||||||||