To sum it up:
http://www.uwsg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0312.0/0670.html
Please resume this discussion in private mail.
EOT
Thorsten
___
vdr mailing list
vdr@linuxtv.org
http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
Georg Acher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 06:47:18PM +0200, Clemens Kirchgatterer wrote:
>
> > or better or whatever. cool, no problem. what? you signed a NDA that
> > does not allow you distribute the os in the first place? your bad.
>
> Once again, and now in capitals.
>
Simon schrieb:
>Georg Acher wrote:
>
>
>
>>And quite frankly, the "dumb" consumer doesn't care about HDCP and its
>>implications. Compared to DRM on music, HDCP is invisible to him, he has no
>>visible disadvantage. So all the boycott stuff is for freaks only. The
>>consumer buys a display with
On 01.07.2007 21:10, Georg Acher wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 08:43:04PM +0200, Matthias Schniedermeyer wrote:
>
> > If only the hardware vendors where as "united" as the movie-industry.
>
> HDCP was invented by Intel, Silicon Image holds a lot of patents on DVI and
> HDMI. As long as they c
Georg Acher wrote:
> And quite frankly, the "dumb" consumer doesn't care about HDCP and its
> implications. Compared to DRM on music, HDCP is invisible to him, he has no
> visible disadvantage. So all the boycott stuff is for freaks only. The
> consumer buys a display with HDMI and it just works (
I demand that Georg Acher may or may not have written...
[snip]
> And quite frankly, the "dumb" consumer doesn't care about HDCP and its
> implications. Compared to DRM on music, HDCP is invisible to him, he has no
> visible disadvantage.
That's as may be... however, it does seem to be ignoring t
On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 08:43:04PM +0200, Matthias Schniedermeyer wrote:
> If only the hardware vendors where as "united" as the movie-industry.
HDCP was invented by Intel, Silicon Image holds a lot of patents on DVI and
HDMI. As long as they can sell chips and licenses, they don't care about th
On 01.07.2007 19:40, Georg Acher wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 06:47:18PM +0200, Clemens Kirchgatterer wrote:
>
> > or better or whatever. cool, no problem. what? you signed a NDA that
> > does not allow you distribute the os in the first place? your bad.
>
> Once again, and now in capitals.
>
On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 06:47:18PM +0200, Clemens Kirchgatterer wrote:
> or better or whatever. cool, no problem. what? you signed a NDA that
> does not allow you distribute the os in the first place? your bad.
Once again, and now in capitals.
IT'S ONLY THE HDMI DRIVER. THE REST OF THE KERNEL IS
Georg Acher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No, it's not. Free is free, you can't make differences between
> hardware vendors using Linux as a basis for their HW and SW vendors
> using Linux as an OS for their SW. And that's exactly the intention
> of your wording ("zero cost").
strange interpretat
On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 03:55:04PM +0100, Darren Salt wrote:
> I demand that Georg Acher may or may not have written...
>
> > On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 02:33:21PM +0100, Darren Salt wrote:
> >> That doesn't matter. It's still Linux-based and you still need to release
> >> the modified sources (I'd s
I demand that Georg Acher may or may not have written...
> On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 02:33:21PM +0100, Darren Salt wrote:
>> That doesn't matter. It's still Linux-based and you still need to release
>> the modified sources (I'd say enough to allow the building of a complete
>> filesystem image for t
On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 02:33:21PM +0100, Darren Salt wrote:
> That doesn't matter. It's still Linux-based and you still need to release the
> modified sources (I'd say enough to allow the building of a complete
> filesystem image for the device).
To make it clear: This whole argument is *ONLY*
I demand that Georg Acher may or may not have written...
> On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 12:33:39PM +0200, Clemens Kirchgatterer wrote:
[snip]
> Until now, there's AFAIK no legal decision that you are not allowed to
> include binary only modules in the kernel. If it gets that far, we will put
> in user
On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 12:33:39PM +0200, Clemens Kirchgatterer wrote:
> > > because that means they get an stable and well performing OS at zero
> > > cost for their embedded designes what makes these chips sell better.
> >
> > So what? Wasn't it idea of free Software to get it without paying f
Georg Acher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From a technical view this is right, but with just a component output
> you can't sell a HDTV decoder card nowadays. And HDMI is not only
> about encryption but also contains audio encapsulation. And that is
> an argument for HDMI vs. DVI...
true.
> HDCP
16 matches
Mail list logo
