| ▲ | crote 2 days ago | |
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! | ||