6 ms·
Summarizing this thread: - I paid for a device with a properly licensed hdmi port. It runs linux. So patent exhaustion applies, at least in the US. I can sa
by hedora 11mo ago
Summarizing this thread:
- I paid for a device with a properly licensed hdmi port. It runs linux. So patent exhaustion applies, at least in the US. I can say ignore the patents to make my property work.
- I have no relationship to the HDMI people. (Never entered into a contract with them.)
- The links to the spec are here. (Trade secrets/nda no longer apply. This is the problem with using trade secrets to protect your stuff.)
- If I point a coding assistant (assume open weights/source) at this thread, and a copy of linux main, it can probably just fix the damn driver.
- I could probably publish my patch with a big fat “only for use with licensed hdmi hardware, not for resale” disclaimer on it.
At that point, what law would I have broken?
- aoeusnth1 11mo agoMaybe nothing, but can you afford to prove that in court?
- userbinator 11mo agoIf you take the effort to anonymise your contributions, can they afford to try to find you?
- firesteelrain 11mo agoIt’s not about individual users. It’s about Valve redistributing it.
- hedora 11mo agoThis affects 100% of linux boxes with an hdmi port, so valve is making a tiny fraction of the impacted hardware.
- firesteelrain 11mo agoMy point was that the HDMI Foundation/Org isn’t going after hobbyists at home. But if a hobbyist were to sell an unlicensed HDMI 2.1 box then the IP holder would likely go after them. In their eyes, in that case, the IP is being pirated. This is very similar to h.264 however however in that case the standard is public, commercial use requires paying a fee. Licensing of the HDMI 2.1 specification requires an NDA for specification testing that Valve is not able to perform in order to say that it is a HDMI 2.1 compliant system. They would be running afoul of the HDMI org’s licensing terms.
- bobdvb 11mo agoI need to post this everywhere: THIS ISN'T AN IP/PATENT ISSUE! This is branding and marketing issue. Anyone can implement the spec, it doesn't need to be a cleanroom implementation. It's almost certain that you could license the patents from the patent holders because HDMI doesn't develop it's own patentable stuff, they just get it from Sony, Panasonic, etc. THIS IS A MARKETING / BRANDING ISSUE. Saying they don't want an open source implementation is just a smokescreen. 99% of the implementation is in hardware anyway.
- IsTom 11mo agoSo why don't AMD and Valve release ICan'tBeliveit'sNotHDMI2.1 drivers?
- heeen2 11mo agoSo you're saying they could just make the driver compliant without advertising compliance under the hdmi logo? similar to how e.g. oneplus shipped phones without advertising their higher IPX rating because certification would have cost too much, or chinese electronics supporting "tf card" instead of "micro sd card" but being compatible anyways
- mft_ 11mo agoWould it be feasible for a driver patch to be shared via e.g. an anonymous torrent, with a checksum (to certify authenticity) held somewhere more reliable, like GitHub?
- mikepurvis 11mo agoSounds like what we used to go through years ago with sound editors that had to have a separate button for downloading and inserting the MP3 encoder because the Fraunhofer license prohibited it from being directly distributed with the software.
- tucnak 11mo agoThis is still the case in Audacity... doesn't rip mp3's out the box.
- cartoonworld 11mo agoSure it does, it just always relied on external encoders. I use audacity for recording vinyl occasionally, but for CD audio I have a bunch of cli scripts. Much easier.
- bdavbdav 11mo agoIf those external encoders are there. That’s the “non-free” checkbox / package in Linux.
- account42 11mo agoNo, with MP3 the encoders/decoders source code was always available in the normal source code repositories (e.g. FFMPEG) - the problem was just with binary distributions.
- binkHN 11mo agoPost the patch in a country that doesn't care? I remember OpenBSD used to do something similar with encryption to get around US laws.
- jokoon 11mo agoThe problem is that software distributors might break laws if the said drivers lands on unlicensed hdmi hardware, so they should be liable to check if the hardware is properly licensed, which might generate headaches. Or maybe lawyers cannot anticipate everything that happens in court, so it just feels better to do things properly and not try to circumvent laws, especially when you're valve. It's better to not take risks.
- cmiles74 11mo agoI suspect Valve's plan is to embarrass the license holder in the hope that they back down. I doubt a court battle would be worth the money.
- yxhuvud 11mo agoEither that or just wait out the problem. As long as the linux gaming market keeps growing the incitaments for the hardware people to change their minds will increasingly be there.
- mschuster91 11mo agoWhat the (hardware) people want doesn't matter, at least as long as the IP owners have the deeper pockets. "The market can stay irrational longer than you can remain solvent" is a pretty universal saying, and it also applies here - the rational thing for MAFIAA et al would be to give up and engage in universal licensing schemes similar to the lesson the music industry learned well over a decade ago. There, you have virtually every single mainstream artist/band available everywhere... Apple Music, Youtube Music, Spotify, Amazon Music, Tidal, Qobuz and I'm sure I forgot a bunch. Piracy in music has all but vanished as a result. We could have had that with Netflix, and a lot of IP catalogs actually were on Netflix, but because of naked greed it all splintered up, and everyone is running their own distinct streaming silos again.
- yxhuvud 11mo agoThe thing about this kind of hardware standard is that the dominant hardware makers control the IP owners. Copyright is a totally different ballgame.