4 ms·
> 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 po
by fps_doug 3y ago
> 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's the fact that they have access to the official HDMI 2.1 spec, implemented that, but call it something else, which I could imagine they forbid in some contract, would things change if some random hacker with too much time on their hands reversed the protocol by sniffing it, implementing it for the AMD driver (again without calling it HDMI)?
Too bad the HDMI forum doesn't feature an email address on their home page, I'd have loved to tell them what I think of them.
- mschuster91 3y ago> Too bad the HDMI forum doesn't feature an email address on their home page, I'd have loved to tell them what I think of them. They actually do at the bottom of [1]. [1] https://hdmiforum.org/about/ https://hdmiforum.org/about/
- luke-stanley 3y agoThanks, I emailed them: # Solutions for the growing open source user base "Hello, I am an AMD user, who uses Linux, and I currently use a small HDMI screen but I am looking to upgrade to a larger screen and I am concerned about the forum's decision to deny AMD's open source HDMI implementation. This decision has led to criticism of the entire HDMI enterprise as rent-seeking, and encourages non-trademarked implementations that weaken the HDMI brand. Linux is only growing in popularity, as people are tired of the advertising baked into Windows, and don't always want a Mac either, I highly suggest a re-think that looks at the rising popularity of open source with Linux, Android, Chrome and so on, to protect the HDMI brand. Sincerely, Luke Stanley"
- megous 3y agoYou 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.
- fps_doug 3y agoSure, but this is a hypothetical scenario, focusing on the legal aspects.
- megous 3y agoLegal aspects of something that can never happen? Why? Try legal aspects of reverse engineering a binary driver. That's more realistic.
- fps_doug 3y agoIt's hypothetical. There is no difference between those two scenarios, we could also just assume the hacker pulled it out of their ass...
- megous 3y agoFine, but it's useless then.
- iforgotpassword 3y agoBut the question is not whether it's legal to reverse engineer a binary. The question is whether someone with no affiliation to neither the HDMI forum nor AMD could contribute the according code to the AMD driver which is part of the Linux Kernel, regarding legal implications. Reverse engineering of binaries is pretty much a solved problem from the legal standpoint.
- Pet_Ant 3y agoI mean a $1M is crowd sourceable if there was a trustworthy person to do this.
- ZiiS 3y agoThere is a contract between AMD and HDMI Forum covering the licence to use the logo. We don't know the wording, and I am sure it is thousands of pages of dense legalise; but it can literally say: "We promise not release a Linux driver compatible with the spec.".