> 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/