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

51–60 of 100 posts

Re: USB Implementers Forum Says No to Open Source

#51

Post by quesera »

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.

Sun used to use the same MAC address on each port of their QFE (quad fast Ethernet) cards. It was easy to fix with ifconfig, but always made me wonder two things: a) if I number these ports sequentially (:a, :b, ...) am I going to collide with some other QFE card from the same batch, possibly from this same order of a dozen cards? And b) who thought this was a good idea? Was Sun just conserving MAC addresses on the theory that most QFE cards are 75% underutilized??

Re: USB Implementers Forum Says No to Open Source

#52

Post by iXce »

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).

Heh, most such open source projects don't want to "go commercial", that's the exact point. And I'm not sure how RedHat is exactly "an open source project who went commercial" or rather a commercial company doing open source.

Re: USB Implementers Forum Says No to Open Source

#53

Post by JonFish85 »

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.

Anecdote: apparently going after Chinese knock-off companies is a gigantic PITA. I've worked with those who have tried going after them. File a complaint about company ACBD. A week later, company ABCD never existed, but company XYZ is operating at the same factory. Amazing!

Re: USB Implementers Forum Says No to Open Source

#54

Post by JonFish85 »

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).

Nothing is stopping anyone from using any given VID for their own purposes of testing. If its in your own garage as the article mentions, you can use whatever you want. However, once it's out in the wild (even if it's just the few hundred devices), the USB-IF (and their lawyers) apparently can squash it.

The fee is $5k if I recall. As others have mentioned, if you are planning on making a real product, it's something you can roll into the cost. Although I completely understand the difficulty of someone just looking to sell ~100 devices.

I wonder if there's a way to allow a "Bring-your-own" VID? As in maybe switches or something to set the VID by the purchaser?

Re: USB Implementers Forum Says No to Open Source

#55

Post by nraynaud »

qwerty_asdf wrote: post #47
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think 0xF055 has circulated too much now (slashdot, hack a day, maker: etc.) So if we there should be squatting it better be on 0xF055. Let's just destroy the strict minimum to achieve our goal (having a unique VID+PID for our proprietary drivers to find the corresponding gadget on the bus).

Re: USB Implementers Forum Says No to Open Source

#56

Post by missing_cipher »

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"

For those who missed it, 0xF055 can be read as "FOSS": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_and_open-source_software

Re: USB Implementers Forum Says No to Open Source

#57

Post by nraynaud »

JonFish85 wrote: post #54
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).

Nothing is stopping anyone from using any given VID for their own purposes of testing. If its in your own garage as the article mentions, you can use whatever you want. However, once it's out in the wild (even if it's just the few hundred devices), the USB-IF (and their lawyers) apparently can squash it. The fee is $5k if I recall. As others have mentioned, if you are planning on making a real product, it's something…

Technically, you could, but you don't want to stomp on other vendor's feet. It's a bit like mac addresses or IP addresses, you can do what you want but you probably want to behave in society (in the case of IP addresses, you'll need friends for routing).

And also, to find the device from the OS API, you sometimes have to submit the VID/PID of the device you are looking for. Example: http://developer.chrome.com/apps/usb.html#method-findDevices So changing it on the fly might be a problem (not sure, maybe once open they won't seek it again).

Re: USB Implementers Forum Says No to Open Source

#58

Post by nraynaud »

Sanddancer wrote: post #26
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 confl…

I always found so stupid they just don't put a bit of flash and the drivers in it. Or just an URL in the device descriptor.

Re: USB Implementers Forum Says No to Open Source

#59

Post by [deleted] »

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.)

[deleted]

Re: USB Implementers Forum Says No to Open Source

#60

Post by weland »

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.

As far as I can understand, as with every organization in the world, when the-entity-that-represents-the-marketing-and-legal-concerns of that organization writes a cease and desist, it kind of comes from that organization. The USB IF itself didn't make a statement because they don't make statements on these matters; that's why they hired VTM Group for.

Don't underestimate the USB Implementers Forum. Despite its name, it is not an organization of USB users (big and small). They have a direct interest in this matter because:

a) Like every organization, they need to have some source of income. Technically, they're a non-profit organization, but they're also the one who issue the VID, and a company giving out PIDs to whoever wants them is eating their "lack of profit".

b) Its members who have an interest in consumer devices/end products (i.e. companies that don't sell chips, but devices using chips) tend to be large and slow-moving. The Kickstarter crowd is pecking at their business options. (True story).

Post reply on HN