A cost analysis of Vista content protection
Posted Dec 24, 2006 3:13 UTC (Sun) by lutchann
In reply to: A cost analysis of Vista content protection
Parent article: A cost analysis of Vista content protection
I guess I just don't see how "when Vista becomes popular, open-source sound and video drivers will become an endangered species" logically follows from "device manufacturers are contractually obligated to not disclose any information that might be used to work around the fingerprinting process" even assuming the latter statement is true. Just because the hardware manufacturer is obligated to provide some sort of secret authentication or handshaking type of functionality doesn't have anything to do with whether the manufacturer can provide programming information for the device to allow a full-featured open driver to be written.
Hardware manufacturers are either interested in supporting Linux or they're not. Those that are not might hide behind the Vista requirements as yet another excuse for not providing open drivers/specs, but I have yet to see any sensible reasoning to justify the assertion that these requirements are going to prevent Linux-supporting hardware companies from being able to do so in the future.
If somebody can provide a more concrete explanation as to how Microsoft is contractually preventing hardware manufacturers from opening their specifications, I'd certainly be interested to know, but the HFS accusation as it's written in this paper doesn't make sense.
to post comments)