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

[sophisticles]

I'm sure Blender developers get paid plenty.
I'm sure Intel Linux developers get paid plenty.
I'm sure Microsoft's Linux developers get paid plenty.
How about Valve developers working on Linux?

Maybe developers working for Canonical just don't get paid?

Perhaps there wasn't a person who got paid during DisplayPort development or extensions?

The law we have here is the law of "This sounds like it makes sense but has limited application out in the real world"

The point is, open source pays plenty. "Getting paid" is not a valid defense of the chicanery coming from the HDMI forum.

I wasn't talking about the developers, I was talking about the mentality of the people that demand all software be free but they would have a fit if someone demanded they work for free.

Taking your examples one by one:

Blender makes money from corporate and individual donations and pays some of their developers from that.

As a whole, Blender makes about 2 million dollars a year, not a lot of money for a project that has been around for 20 years and supposedly is widely used. In fact, according to their latest report they actually lost sponsorship and were looking for ways to impove their cash flow.

Intel can afford to pay their Linux developers well because they basically print money with all the hardware they sell.

Microsoft sells closed source software and services and has the cash to pay Linux developers.

Valve sells closed source games and has the cash to pay Linux developers.

Canonical sells a lot of services and partners with many companies but in terms of profits, they are not making a lit of money.

Regardless, this is about why AMD just doesn't release a closed source driver that supports HDMI 2.1 and call it a day?

https://download.blender.org/foundation/Blender-Foundation-Annual-Report-2022-v2.pdf

[duby229]

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

That's not true at all. The legality of it has to do with the definition of "clean room reverse engineering". If the group doing it has never had any contact or relationship or influence with the specifications that they're reverse engineering and the entire process is thoroughly documented such that a lawyer can defend the actions taken as being compliant with the definition of clean room reverse engineering and that it was necessary for the sake of interoperability.... Then yes, in the US it would be legal.

EDIT: AMD couldn't legally do it, but a group of people like us could....

[Artim]

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

It wouldn't. The issue isn't patents, just the license agreements of the specifications. The specifications may not be published by any members, but HDMI IF has no legal leverage against people reverse engineering it and then publishing it. Sure they'd most likely sue and maybe one of their lawyers may be able to get some win out of it, but just because the accused party wouldn't have the money to hire a similarly competent lawyer. They have no basis to sue.

[Vaporeon]

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?

No, I oppose making open things more closed. Closed source is annoying more than anything, I don't want to have to theoretically install closed source drivers to use a monitor or TV.
I thought the whole point was to make something better, something less annoying because you are free to change it. What is the point of using WINE etc. if the underlying OS is going to become closed off too? Might as well install Microsoft Windows and be done with it.

[duby229]

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

It would only infringe on the patent if it was decompiled from a proprietary source or if the group had some kind of prior influence or relationship. If the work was an original work based on specifications that were clean room reverse engineered (and it was necessary for interoperability) it would be legal.

[Artim]

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?

You should read what you comment on. Preferring open source solutions over closed source solutions isn't the same as opposing closed source solutions. The goal should always be FOSS, but this isn't some dream land, this is the reality. But that doesn't mean you should just lay down dead and accept closed source solutions everywhere.

[avis]

A hypothetical HDMI driver would also not infringe on anything.

We live in the real world and I couldn't care less about hypothetics.

[duby229]

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

Maybe, but AMD couldn't do that. Not legally

EDIT: A group of people like us could do it, who have no prior influence or relationship. And simply doing proper version control would prove beyond doubt that it was done compliant with the definition of clean room reverse engineering.

[duby229]

We live in the real world and I couldn't care less about hypothetics.

Yeah, I know right... In the real world as long as it's done as explained above then it would be perfectly legal. It is -not- hypothetical. It's already been proven and tested in the court of law. The legality of clean room reverse engineering has already been through its litmus tests. There is plenty of case law already.

EDIT: See this is exactly what open source is all about. It isn't so that you can use software free of charge, it's so that you can use your own computer free of restrictions... This scenario is -exactly- what open source is for and why clean room reverse engineering is legal....

[Theriverlethe]

Yeah, I know right... In the real world as long as it's done as explained above then it would be perfectly legal. It is -not- hypothetical. It's already been proven and tested in the court of law. The legality of clean room reverse engineering has already been through its litmus tests. There is plenty of case law already.

EDIT: See this is exactly what open source is all about. It isn't so that you can use software free of charge, it's so that you can use your own computer free of restrictions... This scenario is -exactly- what open source is for and why clean room reverse engineering is legal....

Clean-room reverse-engineering is the entire reason the "IBM/PC compatible" market exists. IBM used off-the-shelf parts for everything in their PC's except a proprietary BIOS. The BIOS was reverse-engineered separately by Columbia Data Systems and Compaq with no grounds for legal challenge, and here we are.