| ▲ | crest 3 days ago |
| This fails even at the FRAND level because you're not "allowed" to implement it in open source software. |
|
| ▲ | throw0101a 3 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| > This fails even at the FRAND level because you're not "allowed" to implement it in open source software. The same conditions apply to everyone: they do not discriminate—the ND in FRAND—open versus closed source. Everyone gets the same contract/NDA to sign. If there was one contract/NDA for closed source, and another for open source, that would be discriminatory. |
| |
| ▲ | crote 2 days ago | parent [-] | | It's non-discriminatory, except for the part where the one contract is written in such a way as to exclude certain groups of potential users? It's like making a law which forbids anyone without gold-threaded clothing from entering certain parts of the city: it doesn't discriminate against the poor, anyone with the right outfit can enter! Oh, poor people can't afford gold-threaded clothing? Sorry, that's just an unfortunate coincidence, nothing we can do about that... | | |
| ▲ | throw0101a 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Those potential users are self-imposing on themselves the need to be open source. There are no external, out-of-their-control factors making them 'be' open source (like there are with being poor, a certain gender, etc). And for the record I do think it would there should be an (open source) HDMI 2.1 implementation in the Linux kernel, but I recognize the same IP law that protects HDMI licensing also allows enforcement of GPL/BSD licenses: > Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake! * https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060665/quotes/ |
|
|
|
| ▲ | MaxBarraclough 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| From the article: > At this time an open source HDMI 2.1 implementation is not possible without running afoul of the HDMI Forum requirements. I wonder on what basis. Perhaps an obligation to ensure the software resists reverse-engineering? |
| |
| ▲ | throwaway2037 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > Perhaps an obligation to ensure the software resists reverse-engineering?
I assume that Blu-Ray is similar. As I understand, there are no fully open source implementations of a video decoder for Blu-Ray discs. (Is that still true in 2025?) | | |
|
