Related story
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| djohnston Oct 25, 2013 12:47 PM EDT |
(Previously posted) http://hackaday.com/2013/10/22/usb-implementers-forum-says-no-to-open-source/ |
| gus3 Oct 25, 2013 5:12 PM EDT |
Okay, so dumb question: What if tinkerers were simply to grab an unused number, say 0x9999 or even 0xFFFF and use it? After all, if I can assign arbitrary NIC values to my network card... |
| skelband Oct 25, 2013 7:41 PM EDT |
They can, but they wouldn't be able to use the USB branding or claim compatibility.
The story is really about very small run companies that want to sell hardware or people giving out designs for people to use to make their own.
To do that, they really need to be able to guarantee a number that won't clash with existing hardware. Imagine if a company is officially assigned a number which you have used without registration. How would it be resolved in the udev database? The USB overlords don't want to lose revenue so they're trying to keep the money stream tight even if it means that small runs and hobbyists are kept out of the picture. |
| CFWhitman Oct 28, 2013 10:05 AM EDT |
Yes, the idea is that there could be a number for open hardware and only for open hardware. However, the USB Implementors Forum ('overlords') are too afraid to let this happen. There has already been a company that started selling numbers to anybody using their number block with a guarantee of no-conflicts. They were not supposed to do this. The USB Implementors Forum is afraid of this happening again. Probably the USB Implementors Forum would be fine with free of charge numbers to open source hardware builders who weren't making a profit. They are just too afraid of abuse to agree to the idea. It's especially scary to them because they don't have much recourse to stop it once it happens. They can only revoke their stamp of approval. They can't reassign the block of numbers to somebody else. |
| gus3 Oct 28, 2013 12:38 PM EDT |
Quoting:They are just too afraid of losing their overlord statusFixed. |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 28, 2013 12:46 PM EDT |
And USB seemed like such a nice, open standard. Silly me. |
| skelband Oct 28, 2013 1:48 PM EDT |
Perhaps a UUID would have been a better bet for the USB id? It wouldn't have made for much of a revenue stream for the USB forum though. :D |
| CFWhitman Oct 28, 2013 3:37 PM EDT |
Well, they are afraid of losing basically all future revenue from selling numbers themselves. They set up the system in a way where they expected to make money, and they want to keep on making it. It's true that someone has to keep track of the numbers and decide on standards, and doing these things does cost a little money. If they lose their status, someone else has to take it up. I'm not saying that I agree with them or their system, mind you. I'm just pointing out that they do serve a purpose, and you have to think twice about whether that purpose should be transitioned to someone else and how any transition should be handled. |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 28, 2013 4:07 PM EDT |
> They set up the system in a way where they expected to make money, and they want to keep on making it. Of course. All bureaucracies eventually become self-perpetuating. > I'm just pointing out that they do serve a purpose And that purpose is a good one, to maintain, document, and coordinate the standards. Lots of different styles of organization can do that, it doesn't require a money-making body. By not allowing a small-run team to do the hard work, and thereby collect many small fees with a specified upper-limit of units before requiring full membership, they have put themselves in a position of restricting the use and spread of their own standard, and ensured their own eventual downfall. |
| vagabondo Oct 29, 2013 2:05 AM EDT |
By only considering the Vendor ID registry function of the USB-IF many commenters are ignoring a bigger obstacle to small-scale and open-source hardware implementations in WTO territories. USB is a proprietary technology, with numerous patents involved. The Forum membership (and annual fee) effectively creates a mutual cross-licensing association. It is difficult to see how anyone without patents to bring to the table could participate; or how a hardware/firmware USB design could be released under an open/Free licence. |
| gus3 Oct 29, 2013 12:32 PM EDT |
So, how long until the USB overlords sue OpenCores? |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!