Not logged in
Log in now
Create an account
Subscribe to LWN
LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 16, 2013
A look at the PyPy 2.0 release
PostgreSQL 9.3 beta: Federated databases and more
LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 9, 2013
(Nearly) full tickless operation in 3.10
As for patents: what would be the problem with releasing the source? What secret would it reveal? It's patently clear that patents can not cover trade secrets, right?
A line in the sand for graphics drivers
Posted Jul 5, 2010 14:39 UTC (Mon) by Baylink (subscriber, #755)
Posted Jul 9, 2010 9:57 UTC (Fri) by yoe (subscriber, #25743)
It becomes one if you violate someone's patent knowingly; but proving that you knew about something at some distant point in the past is rather hard.
Posted Jul 9, 2010 10:21 UTC (Fri) by __alex (subscriber, #38036)
Posted Dec 27, 2010 15:11 UTC (Mon) by ksandstr (guest, #60862)
Posted Jul 9, 2010 17:14 UTC (Fri) by njs (guest, #40338)
Everyone who writes some software is violating other people's patents; the problem is if one of those patent owners notices and can sue you.
Posted Jul 5, 2010 14:52 UTC (Mon) by ernstp (subscriber, #13694)
Posted Jul 5, 2010 15:36 UTC (Mon) by drag (subscriber, #31333)
They have contractual obligations with other vendors to keep some aspects of their hardware secret. This is due to the DRM requirements they have to face. This is simply part of the reality of being a graphics hardware vendor in this day in age.
Patent issues are another one.
Copyrights can be a issue, but it depends on the vendors and how much they contract out to other businesses.
Trade secrets are another issue. Between ATI vs Nvidia they make or break sales by the quality of their windows drivers. That is simply a fact and is another aspect of business that cannot be escaped.
Those issues are going to be big ones.
Writing new open source drivers from scratch, while combined with not documenting certain aspects of the video cards, can avoid most of those issues except patents.
Posted Jul 5, 2010 16:14 UTC (Mon) by smurf (subscriber, #17840)
DRM implies that somewhere there's encrypted / obfuscated content which some piece of code and/or hardware decrypts before displaying, and that said code needs to be coupled to the displaying hardware -- tightly enough that one cannot just capture the output.
Hardware coupling is obviously not a problem in a smartphone (unlike HDMI).
That leaves the actual de-obfuscating part of the source code, which is easily removed from any otherwise-open-source driver program.
Posted Jul 5, 2010 16:20 UTC (Mon) by drag (subscriber, #31333)
I think that is a poor assumption to make. How many PowerVR video devices are used in set-top boxes, televisions, and other devices? I don't know the answer, but it's certainly a large number of devices.
Plus there are phones that do actually have HDMI output, many of those that do are Android devices.
Unfortunately there is plenty of DRM in cell-phone and ARM-style devices.
> encrypted / obfuscated
Yeah. DRM implies Obfuscation really only. Encryption is usually used as part of the process because it's very effective in terms of protection during transport, but it's useless as a mechanism on the actual end user's device itself. So DRM depends entirely on obfuscation to work properly.
DRM is much less of a issue now then it's been in the past, but the effects of it is going to linger on for some years.
Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds