USB Implementers Forum Says No to Open Source • Hacker News Board

Re: USB Implementers Forum Says No to Open Source

#31

Post by ajross » Tue, Oct 22, 2013, 2:08 PM UTC

candydance wrote: post #18

Aardwolf wrote: post #12

I'm not sure I fully understand the article. What does the following mean? "Since other USB device vendors such as Microchip and FTDI give away USB PIDs for free" Does that actually mean, they give them for free? If so, how can they do that? Why does VTM allow them to do it? And what is the actual problem at all if you can get them for free?

Since a USB device gets paired with a driver through a VID/PID pair, buying a single VID allows you access to 65536 PIDs for that VID. They give out the PIDs for free but hold on to the VID for themselves. FTDI own a bunch of VIDs which are associated with "FTDI" devices. If you ask FTDI they'll reserve a small block of PIDs for you to use for your own products that use the FTDI USB chips. 8 PIDs cut out of a 65536 b…

USB devices are supposed to be detected via the class (es) declared in the descriptor actually. This allows for e.g. a single HID driver to work with input devices from all manufacturers. Linux drivers almost all work this way, using the vid/pid for quirk detection only. The windows world tends to be less clean.

Re: USB Implementers Forum Says No to Open Source

#32

Post by nicksdjohnson » Tue, Oct 22, 2013, 2:09 PM UTC

alcari wrote: post #10

eksith wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like this idea. If there's some benefactor to the Open Source community (or even if they pass along a collection) for the VID, that could even work. They just need to properly implement the standard and the VID can effectively be the Hoover or Kleenex of VIDs. Edit: On second thought (after I actually read it), this bit... Please immediately cease and desist raising funds to purchase a unique USB VID for the purpos…

Read the article again. That's not the Forum, that's the VTM Group, which handles their marketing and legal concerns. The USB Implementers Forum itself didn't make a statement.

It's signed "Executive Director"; regardless of their internal organisation, it's a statement from USB-IF.

Re: USB Implementers Forum Says No to Open Source

#33

Post by nicksdjohnson » Tue, Oct 22, 2013, 2:09 PM UTC

nraynaud wrote: post #29

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 perfec…

VIDs and PIDs are 16 bits, not 8.

Re: USB Implementers Forum Says No to Open Source

#34

Post by nicksdjohnson » Tue, Oct 22, 2013, 2:11 PM UTC

piqufoh wrote: post #25

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?

Thanks for the thought. We don't accept donations, but if you like any of the stuff we sell on Tindie (https://www.tindie.com/stores/arachnidlabs/), feel free to buy it!

Re: USB Implementers Forum Says No to Open Source

#35

Post by nraynaud » Tue, Oct 22, 2013, 2:12 PM UTC

nicksdjohnson wrote: post #33

nraynaud wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 perfec…

VIDs and PIDs are 16 bits, not 8.

oops, my bad! But I don't think it's enough to go random on that. We need either a registry or more bits to go random.

Re: USB Implementers Forum Says No to Open Source

#36

Post by Pxtl » Tue, Oct 22, 2013, 2:16 PM UTC

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…

Considering how many cheap Chinese knock-offs out there seem to go unpunished, I don't think the USB folks are really successful at enforcement.

Re: USB Implementers Forum Says No to Open Source

#37

Post by p4bl0 » Tue, Oct 22, 2013, 2:20 PM UTC

amalag wrote: post #23

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.

Yes. That's why people are saying the community should squat one that is still unused and then it will be ours by default, because no manufacturers will want it if its already used.

Re: USB Implementers Forum Says No to Open Source

#38

Post by ryanthejuggler » Tue, Oct 22, 2013, 2:31 PM UTC

eksith wrote: post #14

alcari wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Read the article again. That's not the Forum, that's the VTM Group, which handles their marketing and legal concerns. The USB Implementers Forum itself didn't make a statement.

This idea did not sit well with VTM Group, the people serving as the management, PR, legal, and membership and licensing department of the USB Implementers Forum The hands, the mouth and collector of thoughts cannot be separated from a thing and still be called a whole. Besides even the title says, "USB Implementers Forum Says No to Open Source"

The article is a second-hand source; the author could be trying to stir something up, or maybe just got a bit too excited. Who knows? The article also says the proposal, among others, "haven’t hit the desk of anyone at the USB Implementers Forum, the people who are actually in charge of designating USB VIDs and PIDs". Doesn't sound like the forum said no to me.

Re: USB Implementers Forum Says No to Open Source

#39

Post by SomeCallMeTim » Tue, Oct 22, 2013, 2:48 PM UTC

VLM wrote: post #24

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 intentio…

> 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.

Android has an API to query a unique device ID, which is generated from a field that's supposed to be populated with a serial number by the manufacturer. It is (or was previously) used to identify you as a particular user in some games, as well as for ad tracking and analytics.

One line of phones (I forget which manufacturer) managed to NOT update that serial number correctly, and as a result the entire model of phone came up with the same "unique ID". This was not fun to debug, as lots of users were ending up with other users' saved games, and one particular "user" was showing up in analytics as having used dozens of apps thousands of times a day...

Re: USB Implementers Forum Says No to Open Source

#40

Post by spiritplumber » Tue, Oct 22, 2013, 2:53 PM UTC

eksith wrote: post #3

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 like this idea. If there's some benefactor to the Open Source community (or even if they pass along a collection) for the VID, that could even work. They just need to properly implement the standard and the VID can effectively be the Hoover or Kleenex of VIDs. Edit: On second thought (after I actually read it), this bit... Please immediately cease and desist raising funds to purchase a unique USB VID for the purpos…

"We will be willing to settle the matter with a trial by combat."