HDMI Forum Rejects Open-Source HDMI 2.1 Driver Support Sought By AMD

[avis]

Distros already ship open source nvidia drivers (also tons of other reverse engineered, closed down hardware), what would be the difference here?


Highly unlikely, they only have something against companies that use their license, because no one wants to loose that license and be closed off from new HDMI standards. If you just reverse engineer it, no one can do anything against it, you will just always lack behind.

Nouveau doesn't infringe on anything. This is not a valid counter argument.

[duby229]

You know what, let's just run afoul of the requirements.

Sounds like the exact reason why clean room techniques for reverse engineering are legal.... It's time to pursue that path....

[duby229]

The point isn't, that code is trademark. But HDMI IF has explicitly forbidden to publish any of the specifications that where added after they where made private. Open source code can't really help but make those specifications public. And if anyone with access to the private specifications was to release them in any form, they would lose their license and thus any access to future specification changes.

So the only thing AMD can do is have its devs "leave a USB stick unattended by accident, containing all the secret sauce by accident" so someone with no provable connection to the HDMI IF - be it direct or indirect - can easily reverse engineer the software necessary. Of course there can't be proof that AMD helped in any way.

If it those specifications were clean room reverse engineered then it wouldnt matter and at least in the US it would be totally legal. It wouldn't need access to the specifications, they would be revealed through clean room reverse engineering.

[duby229]

I am very sad to see people so quick to ask for closed binary blobs as a solution. It would be much better to have a 3rd party patch not made by AMD that enables it anyway, this is Linux, this is meant to be the whole point of having an open OS.

Me too. Reverse engineering this using clean room techniques would be perfectly legal and could be open source.

[Theriverlethe]

So AMD has an HDMI 2.1 implementation that they cannot publish. Intel has it working since they have it in the firmware? What about the new Nvidia open kernel drivers? Won't they also be affected?

I believe Intel has a hardware implementation from DP -> HDMI. Obviously if AMD chooses to go this route, it won't help existing customers.

[Anux]

Nouveau doesn't infringe on anything. This is not a valid counter argument.

A hypothetical HDMI driver would also not infringe on anything.

[F.Ultra]

Same as S3TC or ffmpeg no?

yes, some of the s3tc patents have since expired though.

Sounds like the exact reason why clean room techniques for reverse engineering are legal.... It's time to pursue that path....

That only works for copyright, not patents. A patent holder can sue anyone in the chain, which includes the end user.

So AMD has an HDMI 2.1 implementation that they cannot publish. Intel has it working since they have it in the firmware? What about the new Nvidia open kernel drivers? Won't they also be affected?

nVidia have the HDMI stuff in their closed of firmware part.

[Artim]

If it those specifications were clean room reverse engineered then it wouldnt matter and at least in the US it would be totally legal. It wouldn't need access to the specifications, they would be revealed through clean room reverse engineering.

Clean room reverse engineering is time-consuming. Having unprovable access to the specifications would significantly speed things up.

[F.Ultra]

Clean room reverse engineering is time-consuming. Having unprovable access to the specifications would significantly speed things up.

and it also have zero effect on patents. Your reverse engineered solution would still be infringing on the patent so it solves nothing.

[sophisticles]

I am very sad to see people so quick to ask for closed binary blobs as a solution. It would be much better to have a 3rd party patch not made by AMD that enables it anyway, this is Linux, this is meant to be the whole point of having an open OS.

Do you also oppose using closed source proprietary software on Linux?

Software such as games, Resolve, Lightworks, etc?

Do you oppose the existence of WINE since it's purpose is to allow people to use closed source proprietary Windows only software on Linux?