3 ms·

This fails even at the FRAND level because you're not "allowed" to implement it in open source software.

• MaxBarraclough 10mo ago
  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 10mo ago
    > 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?)
    • aleph_minus_one 10mo ago
      > As I understand, there are no fully open source implementations of a video decoder for Blu-Ray discs. (Is that still true in 2025?) As far as I am aware VLC Media Player is capable of playing blu ray dics: > https://www.reddit.com/r/linux4noobs/comments/1ke5ysq/how_to_get_vlc_media_player_to_play_blurays/ https://www.reddit.com/r/linux4noobs/comments/1ke5ysq/how_to... but you have to install some additional files: > https://wiki.videolan.org/VSG:Usage:Blu-ray/ https://wiki.videolan.org/VSG:Usage:Blu-ray/ > https://www.reddit.com/r/linux4noobs/comments/1ke5ysq/comment/mqgerp8/ https://www.reddit.com/r/linux4noobs/comments/1ke5ysq/commen... If this does not satisfy your claim "there are no fully open source implementations of a video decoder for Blu-Ray discs" tell me where I am wrong.
      • throwaway2037 10mo ago
        Hat tip. I was unaware. When I looked deeper, it requires you to supply the encryption keys for each disc. I highly doubt this method is "approved" by the Blu-Ray consortium. I don't even know the legality in highly advanced economies.
• throw0101a 10mo ago
  > 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 10mo 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 10mo ago
      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/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060665/quotes/