Today is the deadline for Open Hardware Summit 2011 talk, breakout, and demo proposals. We’re publishing ours for feedback, and maybe to inspire your last minute entry.
This is for a 5-20 minute talk to the entire group about USB IDs, and all the hoops you have to jump through to work with them. There’s no way it’ll be selected given the headliners available, but given the ridiculousness of the USB ID situation it might be a humorous break from heavier topics. This was inspired by a discussion with Bert Vermeulen prior to OHS 2010.
If anyone wants to partner up and do a breakout group on this, that would be cool too!
The proposal follows the format given at the MakerBot link above:
Type of submission: talk or breakout session. A 5-20 minute talk is no problem, but maybe this is specific enough that it should be a breakout. I’m flexible and can talk a little or a lot, general or specific. I’d also be thrilled to team up with anyone who wants to do a breakout on this topic.
Title: Open Hardware and the $2000 USB tax
Bio: Ian builds a new open hardware project every month at DangerousPrototypes.com, many of them use USB. Copies of the projects are available from Seeed Studio’s open hardware manufacturing service.
Description of talk: Every USB device needs a unique ID number issued by the USB forum. A block of 65,000 numbers is available for $2000. That’s a hefty investment for a small open hardware community or kitchen table start up.
The ID also comes with a ton of restrictions that don’t jive with open source, namely it can’t be shared and used freely under an open source license. Projects may have open source code, but a compiled firmware with a USB ID can’t be used freely. For example, the ATMEGA USB to serial converter chip on the new Arduino requires a USB ID. Anyone who wants to manufacture an UNO clone has to cough up $2000 bucks to get their own ID, Arduino can’t share theirs. That’s the $2000 USB tax.
Current options:
- Resell them: Everyone’s first thought, but let’s talk about the Dutch guys who tried…
- Sub license one: Microchip, FTDI, and other USB hardware makers are allowed to sub license USB IDs to use with their hardware. This is how we do USB projects. The number can’t be shared (not open source friendly), and may have a limit like 10,000 units.
- Squat a range: USB forum can’t recycle a number once it is assigned. Open hardware can squat an abandoned or revoked (eg, the Dutch guys’) number. There’s no law to prevent it (*probably) and it’s unlikely to duplicate an existing device. Fine for testing but not very professional, and the USB forum may still send nasty-grams if you sell it.
Potential solutions:
- Relax resale policy: This would be ideal, but they’re getting more strict and there’s still the licensing and sharing problem.
- Testing block: There’s no block of IDs for internal testing. A free-for-all range would be great, with some reserved IDs for common services like USB to serial. No restrictions on this range, but no guarantee devices won’t conflict.
- Open block: A block of IDs available to open hardware projects. It’s probably not worth the USB forum’s time to sell individual numbers, but even if they’re adverse to resale maybe they would allow a non-profit to issue numbers for qualified OSH licensed projects. The key is that open source project be able to share these numbers so we don’t have to dance around proper open source distribution.
Conclusions:
The situation is silly, but it could easily be solved with a policy change at the USB forum. That probably means lobbying the big players like Intel who make up the USB forum and requesting a space for open hardware. Open hardware is visible and trendy right now, it’s probably a great time to entice and shame key players into acknowledging our needs.Importance: USB is already the standard interface on most computers, and many open hardware projects use it too. As open hardware becomes more wide spread the issues of USB IDs will become bigger. A big company doesn’t blink at $2000 for an ID, but it locks out small makers and open source communities.
I tried this last year at the OHS, and told you about it at the time. The OHS organizers refused it, AND refused to let me set up a breakout session. Very disappointing, considering how serious this problem is.
Our discussions last year prompted me to submit this. I’m sorry I didn’t credit you, I looked for our emails but couldn’t find them. I added it to the post.
I didn’t remember that they turned it down. I wanted to go last year, almost made it at the very last minute, but it didn’t work out.
Do you think they were against the idea totally? Do they want to cover the more esoteric and political sides of Open Hardware? I kinda worry about that, I’m mostly on the applied site making stuff. I also submitted two more proposals in other categories that will be on the blog later tonight…to hedge my bets.
Nah, wasn’t angling for credit :)
I have no idea why it was turned down. There was no real room for BOF/breakout sessions, and those would really have helped. Hopefully they will fix that this year.
Will you be there? I submitted 3 proposals today to hold the door open for anyone who might want to talk about this stuff. If it’s a breakout and you’re there, please help me lead it.
The experience last year soured me a bit on the OHS, so I probably won’t go. But if it should get approved, I’d be happy to go and help out.
Well I learned something. I wasn’t aware of USB IDs. Never really had to delve into it before.
I agree with the idea of having an “open source” block that those of us developing usb devices could use. And by using an assigned block with a unique set of numbers, it could work like the “900” area code. And device that came up with that identifier would let everyone know it is both open source and probably experimental.
I’m facing the same problem for a USB-based project I’m working on. I want to distribute it as an open design, but the $2K barrier will greatly reduce its appeal to others.
My dream solution would be for an open-friendly outfit of reasonable size (Sparkfun, Adafruit, etc.) to negotiate a partnership with the USB Forum to administer and subdivide one vendor ID. The forum could attach a reasonable set of terms, like a signed license agreement and a prohibition against using the USB Forum logos. Just make sure there are some terms that allow redistribution of open hardware designs — even if they spell out that to qualify, the designs must be fully published. Cost? I’d love to see $50 for a block of 5 device IDs.
It wouldn’t have to be resale per se. The partnering outfit could take on an agency or administrator role, which would let the USB Forum maintain control, but also free them from having to deal with hundreds of small-fry developers.
I think the biggest challenge is to convince the USB org that they have something to gain from loosening their reigns.
What they have to lose is their brand. Sure, open hardware could be prohibited from using the USB logo, but how many people actually look for the logo? If the USB cable fits, but the device does not work well – or worse, it fries their computer – then the entire USB industry suffers from the market perception that USB devices are not reliable and well-behaved.
There are so many challenges in the process of producing a USB product. The $2,000 VID is the smallest of those challenges. It seems like removing the smallest challenge might not be in the best interest of the USB org if they perceive that the larger challenges are still there. In other words, any outfit who cannot afford $2,000 probably might not have the engineering budget to produce a reliable product.
Perhaps the key is to convince the USB folks that open hardware and open firmware will allow small-budget USB devices to perform as well as the big boys. The very things that are not possible now – sharing open firmware with embedded VID/PID numbers – are exactly what might help make open products perform as well as high-design-budget products. So, by changing their rules – even if to special-case open designs – might address the only valid concerns that the USB org has.
P.S. I don’t see the 10,000 limit on OEM-shared PID numbers as a real problem. Any company who produces more than 10,000 products should be able to afford $2,000 for 65,535 PIDs. That’s only going to increase the product cost by $0.20 each, or less. Many of my clients have produced fewer than 10,000 of my USB circuit designs, and yet they could afford the USB tax if they needed to – sure costs less than a pick-and-place.
Wow, I had no idea about these IDs. Good luck getting a talk or breakout session going!