4 ms·

Thank you! This addresses a real need in the open source hardware community. Is USB-IF aware of this[1]? Would they see this as a violation of the spirit of th

by otoburb 12y ago

Thank you! This addresses a real need in the open source hardware community. Is USB-IF aware of this[1]? Would they see this as a violation of the spirit of the current terms in the sense of the revenue loss, and come after pid.codes for every $500 application they feel you might owe them? I'm optimistically hoping that you've discussed this with USB-IF and that although they may not officially endorse or support, they won't actively try to stop what you're doing. [1] >>This site is in no way supported or endorsed by USB-IF. EDIT: I should have read the FAQ[2] where you address this question specifically under "Won’t you get in trouble?" [2] http://pid.codes/faq/ http://pid.codes/faq/

etimberg 12y ago
I think it would be pretty mean spirited of the USB-IF to go after open source hardware projects. It's not like these are projects that will be earning someone money. Unfortunately, lawyers will probably get overzealous.
- otoburb 12y ago
  I also think it would be mean spirited, albeit somewhat consistent with their current stance of not giving any open source hardware projects a break on the $5K VendorID registration & assignment fee[1]. [1] http://www.usb.org/developers/vendor/ http://www.usb.org/developers/vendor/ EDIT: Fortunately, other organizations have done something similar, such as OpenMoko[2], without incurring USB-IF's wrath. [2] http://wiki.openmoko.org/wiki/USB_Product_IDs http://wiki.openmoko.org/wiki/USB_Product_IDs
aceperry 12y ago
I don't think the USB-IF had given much thought to the maker community, and makers weren't as big back then when USB-IF put together this program. I agree with you and hope as well that the USB-IF gives the open-source maker community a break. Although, recently, the Bluetooth SIG (Bluetooth equivalent of the USB-IF) started to charge fees to anyone utilizing Bluetooth in their products, even if you used a module that was already qualified and paid fees. Hopefully the USB-IF won't do the same.

by otoburb 12y ago

etimberg 12y ago

I think it would be pretty mean spirited of the USB-IF to go after open source hardware projects. It's not like these are projects that will be earning someone money. Unfortunately, lawyers will probably get overzealous.

otoburb 12y ago
I also think it would be mean spirited, albeit somewhat consistent with their current stance of not giving any open source hardware projects a break on the $5K VendorID registration & assignment fee[1]. [1] http://www.usb.org/developers/vendor/ http://www.usb.org/developers/vendor/ EDIT: Fortunately, other organizations have done something similar, such as OpenMoko[2], without incurring USB-IF's wrath. [2] http://wiki.openmoko.org/wiki/USB_Product_IDs http://wiki.openmoko.org/wiki/USB_Product_IDs

aceperry 12y ago

I don't think the USB-IF had given much thought to the maker community, and makers weren't as big back then when USB-IF put together this program. I agree with you and hope as well that the USB-IF gives the open-source maker community a break. Although, recently, the Bluetooth SIG (Bluetooth equivalent of the USB-IF) started to charge fees to anyone utilizing Bluetooth in their products, even if you used a module that was already qualified and paid fees. Hopefully the USB-IF won't do the same.