One of the limitations of AMD’s open-source Linux graphics driver has been the inability to implement HDMI 2.1+ functionality on the basis of legal requirements by the HDMI Forum. AMD engineers had been working to come up with a solution in conjunction with the HDMI Forum for being able to provide HDMI 2.1+ capabilities with their open-source Linux kernel driver, but it looks like those efforts for now have concluded and failed.
↫ Michael Larabel
So dumb.
This is why open standards are so important, yet the sad reality is that many of the companies responsible for standards would rather technology standards be closed and encumbered.
I don’t know how much trouble AMD would get into if their FOSS drivers got leaked, but the world would probably be better for it if it happened.
They probably would loss their HDMI license, which would result in not being able to get access to new versions of the specification (HDMI 2.1 is closed, and can only be accessed after signing a non-disclosure agreement); also, they wouldn’t be allowed to put the HDMI logo in their cards. And I presume that they also won’t be able to access the HDMI certification that ensures that their interfaces adhere to the standard, so problems with a lot of devices would arise in new products.
I wonder what their motivation is for rejecting this? Who benefits from keeping HDMI 2.1 support from open source products?
Andre,
Not sure what the fee structure looks like today, but it’s probably because an open source implementation would make it far easier to sidestep their business model.
https://web.archive.org/web/20081218170701/http://www.hdmi.org/manufacturer/terms.aspx
I still feel open standards are better for consumers, but these are private companies that want standards to produce a ROI. For better or worse, it’s likely that more money can be made from proprietary than from FOSS.
Alfman,
There are already devices coming from China (and easily available) that sidestep not only their business model, but also “so called” protections.
We probably talked about this before, but HDMI HDCP downgraders are very useful, and actually necessary on early gen UHD TVs with modern sources (like the Xbox Series consoles). Even when you purchase the content legally, they would not allow you to view them, … unless you have a device like this: https://www.gofanco.com/hdcp-2-2-downgrader-pro-hdcpconv.html
And of course there are even more capable devices removing other “controls”. But (1) needing to do this is a shame, (2) they can always go after the “big fish” like AMD.
sukru,
I’d like to build a kodi system that can timeshift programs would like to capture programs even if they are HDCP restricted. I’ve heard of the workarounds, but as I haven’t tried it before, is it strictly necessary to use HDCP splitter/converter or is there capture hardware that can do it directly? Obviously I don’t care if it’s not HDMI certified as long as it works.
Do you have firsthand experience with this converter or did you just search it up randomly?
https://www.gofanco.com/hdcp-2-2-downgrader-pro-hdcpconv.html
Alfman,
I searched it randomly, as the device I have no longer seems to be in production:
https://www.monoprice.com/product?p_id=15242
(Or maybe temporarily out of stock)
It had allowed me to watch UHD Blurays with my Xbox on my previous Samsung TV.
I have also heard good things about HDFury, but they are much more expensive.
The difficult part would be finding a reliable HDMI capture device, though. Most $30 USB “game capture devices” would occasionally hiccup and lose the stream. Again you might need to look for more expensive options.
Or look at HDMI -> CSI adapters which can be used by Raspberry PI or other embedded devices. (Does Kodi run as a server on RPi 4 with good perf)?
Something like:
https://www.amazon.com/Waveshare-Adapter-Raspberry-Backward-Compatible/dp/B08TBD68MH/
This was also what is recommended for Pi-KVM in the past.
Some more discussion:
https://www.reddit.com/r/VIDEOENGINEERING/comments/xme482/hdmi_1x2_splitter_to_bypass_hdcp/
They charge a fee per product sold. The driver ain’t going to change that. Perhaps they would need to pay 1 cent more as a build can be made lacking HDCP support. And perhaps that is the issue, that a build could be made reporting to the software HDCP support is available, but outputs an unencrypted stream.
Andre,
I agree that’s possible, but even if we assume AMD’s product remains compliant, The HDMI forum might be rejecting open source on the basis of what someone else could do with that source code 1) without paying fees, and 2) without the restrictions.
Alfman,
Not sure about the details, but if they are asking for a license fee, it is very likely that is attached to some patents and/or trademarks (like the HDMI logo itself).
If it is the latter, the usual choice is rebranding the open source version (OpenIndiana vs OpenSolaris).
If it is patents, we will have another mp3 situation, and even with the best intentions, an open source implementation would not be viable anyway. (Yes, I know we will probably have something like ffmpeg outside of the patent holder jurisdiction).
Anyway, I wonder how nvidia handles this, as they now have an “open source” driver. Do they just pass the responsibility to a binary firmware blob?
sukru,
Much to the dismay of many FOSS advocates, nvidia drivers are not open source. What they got upstream was an open source interface for the proprietary drivers to use. This actually did solve some real problems – before this the proprietary drivers would regularly break across kernel updates. Now since the API is part of the kernel it doesn’t break anymore. But the nvidia drivers themselves remain proprietary.
An open source implementation would allow to make “pirate” devices to companies that don’t have a license.
jgfenix,
Of course.
But again, I don’t think this is about piracy, but more about control.
I can rip my own Ultra HD BluRays directly for backing them up, without needing an external device and cumbersome setup. But they make it extremely difficult to get a screenshot from Disney+ of the same content just to share it for discussion / commentary (which has much cleaner exceptions in the copyright law).
They want the people to believe the companies are in total control, and our simple rights just do not exist.