On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 15:33:06 -0700
James Richard Tyrer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You have no idea, how restricitve the HDCP license is.
> > It denies you the right to give out documentation of any
> > system that can encrypt/decrypt HDCP streams to anyone
> > who does not have a HDCP licnese. It even requires that
> > no HDCP encryption/decryption chip is sold to any entity
> > who does not have a license.
> >
> > I personally don't see any way how we could comply with
> > these restrictions while still be true to our original
> > goal of having a completely documented graphics card.
>
> If the encryption is done inside of a commercial chip, then the only
> issue is how to prevent sending out an unencrypted signal when this is
> not allowed.
Yes, technically there wouldn't be an issue. But that doesn't
mean we can comply with the terms of the license. As I said,
the license agreement you need to sign to get access to HDCP
stuff is the most paranoid license i've ever seen.
> We could easily make something that was more secure than current PC
> hardware running under Windows Vista.
I don't doubt that. No, i'm quite sure that we could easily
build something that would be even secure in an OSS enviroment.
But then again, it doesn't matter what we think or what we can
do, it only matters what the MPAA thinks is right.
Attila Kinali
--
Linux ist... wenn man einfache Dinge auch mit einer kryptischen
post-fix Sprache loesen kann
-- Daniel Hottinger
_______________________________________________
Open-graphics mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics
List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
