Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

USB Implementers Forum Says No to Open Source

hackaday.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 100 posts

Re: USB Implementers Forum Says No to Open Source

#21

Post by cdawzrd »

tlarkworthy wrote: post #7

I don't understand. I use lots of hobby stuff with USB ports. I have to lookup the vendor ID to make it read write in linux by default. Presumably getting a proper ID makes this pain point go away from consumers somehow? What's the gain I don't understand it?

Many hobby things with USB ports are using the default VID/PID from the chip vendor (generally FTDI's USB-to-Serial converter chips, or the on-chip USB controller of Atmel/Microchip/etc's microcontrollers).

Using your own VID/PID allows you to write and distribute a driver that can be tied to your gadget rather than using a generic driver. Widely distributing products (even if they are "hobby stuff") that re-use the microcontroller's default VID/PID is also usually against the license agreement with the chip vendor and can lead to problems down the road.

Re: USB Implementers Forum Says No to Open Source

#22

Post by gsnedders »

samworm wrote: post #5
jrockway wrote: post #2

Why not just pick a VID and start using it? USB is so well understood at this point that there is no need for anyone to play ball with an "official" organization. (Whoever gets "officially" issued that VID is going to whine when they notice it's already being used for hobbyist purposes anyway, which means that the technique of just picking one will guarantee uniqueness.)

The way these things normally work is that you're only allowed to use the name and marks if you're an official licensee. So if you put the USB logo on your marketing and claim to have a "USB Mini" connector in your specifications then you could be in trouble on two fronts: (1) the usb folks can sue you for using their IP and (2) purchasers can claim the product is not "as described" which may given them certain right…

"[...] using a connector included on all modern computers".

Re: USB Implementers Forum Says No to Open Source

#23

Post by amalag »

ck2 wrote: post #8

Just do what all the $1 Chinese USB devices on ebay do - clone an existing VID

From what I understand they clone existing VIDs because their functionality is exactly the same. If you have new functionality and need a new driver I don't think you can do that.

Re: USB Implementers Forum Says No to Open Source

#24

Post by VLM »

ck2 wrote: post #8

Just do what all the $1 Chinese USB devices on ebay do - clone an existing VID

That's the humorous part of the whole discussion that the VTM group is trying to preserve revenue by ignoring the hobbyists and sticking with the people who think nothing of falsifying UL registry, falsifying FCC certifications, and violating patents, but I'm sure those guys would never turn against the VTM group and illegally use the USB trademark without permission, LOL.

Whereas the hobbyists, if you don't intentionally try to screw them over like they're trying to do, would probably be ridiculously loyal and obedient in comparison.

Fundamentally despite the "hate opensource" and "revenue generating middlemen" story, some of which probably is true, the fundamental problem is likely the lack of a point of contact. They probably like knowing there's a directory of real world contact information such that identification number 0x123456 is clearly a product of such and such for debugging purposes and interoperability and lack of duplicate IDs and the like.

Something similar happens with ethernet MAC addresses. Legendarily it was HP (or was it sun?) who shipped a whole batch of ethernet cards accidentally in the 90s with the same MAC address, boy was that a nightmare to figure out the hard way.

Re: USB Implementers Forum Says No to Open Source

#25

Post by piqufoh »

Hopefully such a bullish and short sighted stance as this is just the thing to get some publicity and traction to boot these idiots out, or at least kick the money grubbing Luddites out and replace them with someone with some common sense. Grah

Where can I donate to Arachnid Labs?

Re: USB Implementers Forum Says No to Open Source

#26

Post by Sanddancer »

tlarkworthy wrote: post #7

I don't understand. I use lots of hobby stuff with USB ports. I have to lookup the vendor ID to make it read write in linux by default. Presumably getting a proper ID makes this pain point go away from consumers somehow? What's the gain I don't understand it?

A proper ID makes it much easier for the consumers. By having a proper ID, the OS can search its database of drivers, and if that fails, try to download from a source such as Windows Update.

Also, a lot of this could very well be trying to avoid the pain of the Bad Old Days of pre-plug and play DOS, where you had to manually set things like interrupts and I/O ports, and hope and pray that your new device didn't conflict with something important. For example, many an oldschool game had dire warnings about not running the sound card autodetect if you had things like scsi cards, because the conflicts were near inevitable and pretty catastrophic.

Re: USB Implementers Forum Says No to Open Source

#27

Post by brudgers »

samworm wrote: post #5
jrockway wrote: post #2

Why not just pick a VID and start using it? USB is so well understood at this point that there is no need for anyone to play ball with an "official" organization. (Whoever gets "officially" issued that VID is going to whine when they notice it's already being used for hobbyist purposes anyway, which means that the technique of just picking one will guarantee uniqueness.)

The way these things normally work is that you're only allowed to use the name and marks if you're an official licensee. So if you put the USB logo on your marketing and claim to have a "USB Mini" connector in your specifications then you could be in trouble on two fronts: (1) the usb folks can sue you for using their IP and (2) purchasers can claim the product is not "as described" which may given them certain right…

At this point, I doubt that certification matters for many applications, particularly in the consumer sector.

"Connects to your computer at speeds up to five gigabits per second using industry standard USB cable," probably covers everything short of a the edge cases such as government procurement contracts.

Re: USB Implementers Forum Says No to Open Source

#28

Post by happywolf »

I presume there is a segment of VID that is marked as 'local' or 'for test purpose only'? Just like IP has local addresses for intranet/testing.

Also, if an open source is popular enough to the point a unique VID is needed for proper driver support, I will say this project will easily get fundings to go commercial (just like RedHat).

Re: USB Implementers Forum Says No to Open Source

#29

Post by nraynaud »

jrockway wrote: post #2

Why not just pick a VID and start using it? USB is so well understood at this point that there is no need for anyone to play ball with an "official" organization. (Whoever gets "officially" issued that VID is going to whine when they notice it's already being used for hobbyist purposes anyway, which means that the technique of just picking one will guarantee uniqueness.)

I think there's still a problem because that leaves still only 255 PID.

Maybe we should just squat the VID, and then do a PID+(another field in the descriptor) as the discriminator for people who need special protocols (I do).

For now I've stolen my MCU maker VID and used 255 as PID, because I couldn't even find an "experimental" PID/VID in the spec to use during development.

It's a bug and urgent problem, I'm perfectly ok to fudge the rules, but we have to agree on something that doesn't break people's drivers.

Re: USB Implementers Forum Says No to Open Source

#30

Post by nraynaud »

happywolf wrote: post #28

I presume there is a segment of VID that is marked as 'local' or 'for test purpose only'? Just like IP has local addresses for intranet/testing. Also, if an open source is popular enough to the point a unique VID is needed for proper driver support, I will say this project will easily get fundings to go commercial (just like RedHat).

Nope I couldn't find any in the specification.

Following a link on the internet it look like they actually have a prototype VID/PID, but you have to contact the forum and sign some boilerplate (saying you won't release your product with the proto numbers) to get it.

Post reply on HN