> 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.
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...
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!
> 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?)
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.
