I do not really have a body for this. I was not aware that this is a thing and still feel like this is bs, but maybe there is an actual explanation for HDMI Forum’s decision that I am missing.
I do not really have a body for this. I was not aware that this is a thing and still feel like this is bs, but maybe there is an actual explanation for HDMI Forum’s decision that I am missing.
Which could be paid by Valve in this case, especially since no one is expecting the Steam Box thing to be cheap.
If the license holder isn’t willing to accept the money, it doesn’t matter if Valve is willing to pay it.
Everyone has a price. Maybe a superyacht or two from Gabe’s fleet?
It’s not about liquid money. It’s about “preventing piracy” by blocking anything that could allow people to use certain features via FOSS systems.
I was thinking more along the lines of, "let people pirate. Here’s a megayacht’.
The license holder is attaching additional terms and conditions that are incompatible with publicly disclosing the driver source code.
It still boggles my mind things can be licensed/copyrighted without being forced to disclose source code. The lack of transparency we’re okay with in society is absolutely unsustainable.
This wouldn’t work to scale. If Valve paid to license the spec for the Linux kernel, it would have to pay for every person who downloaded the driver, which is far more than the amount of people who buy the Steam Cube.
Unless of course you’re suggesting that the kernel driver for the new spec become closed source.
Unfortunately, I am — or rather, I am suggesting that Valve be granted a license they can use.
I like open source, but not so much that I’d prefer hardware that already exists be held back a feature because others can’t benefit for free.
I’d prefer a workaround.
OK. Fine. Then it’s going to be reverse engineered and everyone will use it anyways and they’ll get nothing.
It’s not, people will just convert DP to HDMI and call it a day
If it ever gets open sourced, anybody will just use it without paying.