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

41–50 of 100 posts

Re: USB Implementers Forum Says No to Open Source

#41

Post by Kliment »

cdawzrd wrote: post #21
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…

OSHW devices can get a PID from Openmoko's range, and closed source devices can either go fuck themselves or buy a PID from http://www.mcselec.com/index.php?page=shop.product_details&f...

The USB-IF can go fuck themselves either way. There is no place for them in this world, and I hope they disappear as soon as reasonably possible.

Re: USB Implementers Forum Says No to Open Source

#42

Post by wiml »

According to TFA, Openmoko/FIC is already giving out PIDs from their VID space to any FOSS projects who ask.

IIRC they're not the first, either. And there've also been organizations freely allocating unique ethernet addresses out of their OUI space.

The amount of trouble they receive from the USBIF/IEEE/whoever seems to vary a lot from case to case, though. I expect it depends on which individual person the situation comes to the attention of. In some cases the USBIF or IEEE has actually revoked the VID/OUI assignment, leaving everyone who tried to play by the rules effectively squatting on an unassigned ID anyway.

Some ancient history: https://forum.sparkfun.com/viewtopic.php?t=931

Re: USB Implementers Forum Says No to Open Source

#43

Post by nitrogen »

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…

I know I saw 0xffff or something like that being used for development in some source code, but it turns out searching for "VID" is impossible because it gets interpreted as "video".

Re: USB Implementers Forum Says No to Open Source

#45

Post by StavrosK »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #4
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.)

They have: "There are a number of ideas to get around VTM Group that include squatting on USB VID 0xF055"

Hah, nice VID, easy to remember.

Re: USB Implementers Forum Says No to Open Source

#46

Post by mildtrepidation »

Pxtl wrote: post #36
samworm wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Which could be said about so many such knockoffs; however, the issue of Chinese and other non-US counterfeiting is harder precisely because they're non-US, and operating in manners and areas where the legal system is not prone to caring about US regulations (for better or worse).

So whether you can safely ignore this depends largely on how easy it is for this body to successfully throw the book at you, and others' success in this area doesn't really mean anything unless you're able to operate in the same circumstances, which I doubt most of us are.

Re: USB Implementers Forum Says No to Open Source

#47

Post by qwerty_asdf »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #4
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.)

They have: "There are a number of ideas to get around VTM Group that include squatting on USB VID 0xF055"

Does anybody own these?

  0xDEAD
  0xBEEF
  0x1337
  0xFACE
  0xF00D
  0xABCD
...and so on?

Maybe, if they're reserved as unassignable (due to being an inappropriate value for professional, business puposes), then perhaps it's open season on those.

Re: USB Implementers Forum Says No to Open Source

#48

Post by pantalaimon »

ck2 wrote: post #8

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

That's pretty messy though.

I have a knock-off xbox controller that is an exact copy of the Xbox controller S, but claims USB ID ffff:ffff. It turns out there is also some unrelated cheap IR receiver that does the same and if you are unlucky this driver gets loaded instead, leaving you wondering why the gamepad doesn't work.

Re: USB Implementers Forum Says No to Open Source

#49

Post by wheremiah »

Fuxy wrote: post #15
samworm wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Let's just call it ThatThing2 and ThatThing3 in the hobby community :P

How about BSU? It could stand for a lot of things... but I like Bull Sh!t USB. Which I think is an appropriate eye-poke response to an annoying organization.

Re: USB Implementers Forum Says No to Open Source

#50

Post by gpvos »

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…

Call it BSU2 and BSU3.
Post reply on HN