As reported in the latest free edition of LWN the Bluetooth Qualification Administrator has demanded that the Linux BlueZ project take down the Bluetooth hardware compatibility list for Linux, claiming that ‘As neither of these products have been qualified using Linux it is illegal to make them available for public use’. This was apparently done at the request of a registered member of the Bluetooth SIG.
Seems like this is both a non-issue (as a list is available) and old (page last updated in March/April 2005).
What’s the logic behind this move? Linux users are customers too, their members will only lose sales. I can only think about this as a little mistake of bluetooth sig. And apart of that, it’s only a list, it do not hurts anyone. This list only do a public service for common good, including the members of bluetooth sig by itself.
I don’t
It is very simple in fact /*that is if I understood it correctly*/.
One member complained about using BlueZ for connecting with Bluetooth with their device. This can be interpreted as a competitive low-blow or as one company that doesn’t intend to even look at Linux direction.
In translation: “You don’t certify our products for use with Linux, we do. Until then, nothing works with Linux”.
This doesn’t invalidate BlueZ, but it validates vendor to refuse guarantee service of your bluetooth device when device is not used correctly (in this case Linux).
grab yourself a snaphot from the wayback machine, shame it can’t be kept updated though 🙁
From looking at it, hard to say. The Bluetooth standard appears not to be an open standard, but has to be licensed. The IEEE licensed parts of the Bluetooth SIG standard to use in the standard they published. I sure don’t understand why they would pull a list of devices that work though. We all have seen what happens with “de facto” standards, which is what Bluetooth is. My biggest concern is wondering if this is the first step to try and get it pulled from the kernel since it seems to be proprietary, and not open. Hopefully I have read things wrong, and it really is an open standard.
Hasn’t anyone noticed this?
———————————
Latest information
On March, 9th 2005, [following this thread]
———————————
Qualification
Since April, 11th 2005 the BlueZ protocol stack is qualified as a Bluetooth subsystem. Companies can now use this listing to qualify their adapters with Linux support.
Does this mean that this post is illegal because I am going to tell you: “I claim my Nokia 6620 phone works with Ubuntu Linux under Bluetooth”?
Or is it only illegal if I tell you that my unofficial bluetooth implementation, which I offer for download, works with my Nokia 6620?
But what are the grounds for such a claim? Did BlueZ sign a contract with the Bluetooth folks? Mis-use of trademark?
Who is the “registered member of the Bluetooth SIG” that made the request?
d@
“Who is the “registered member of the Bluetooth SIG” that made the request?”
Exactly – having been working on the “bleeding edge” of various cell-phone standards over the last 20 years, listening to the importance of “openness” from whome today are the really big guns, makes me wonder – have I been on the wrong side??
This is a non issue!!!
Was an editor just surfing and thought it would be good to post March/April news here?
Lets put this to rest as it has been certified as others have pointed out!
On top of the 200 plus patents Linux is stealing, it goes and tramples on other peoples trademarks. Kinda funny how the same crowd of thieves and hypocrites dance for joy when Philips protects the CD standard,reinforcing their ability to steal music. How many millions of any currency you chose are stolen by programmers working in direct competition to their employers? Linux=theft.
Patents … LOl .. patents robbery system you mean …
Take a break… take a Kit Kat !!!
On top of the 200 plus patents Linux is stealing, it goes and tramples on other peoples trademarks. Kinda funny how the same crowd of thieves and hypocrites dance for joy when Philips protects the CD standard,reinforcing their ability to steal music. How many millions of any currency you chose are stolen by programmers working in direct competition to their employers? Linux=theft.
Daryl McBride?
evryone “steal” patent…
the main diferences between the one who does it is that some company such microsoft has got a lot of layers in order to sue people or to defend themselves(they infridge a lot of patent too)
I am not sure if this is an issue or not.
Anyway i that to avoid the problems is enough to state in the Web page that it is an “UNOFFICIAL lis of compatiblility with Linux”… and that’s it.
Hopefully.
Angel–Fr@gzill@
You pushed the “post” button. You violated the one-click patent. I bet your browser displayed a progress bar while posting that statement. That’s also patented. You mean to use the http protocol to interact with other humans, also patented. So you are violating at least three patents making that statement. You, dear sir, are a “thief”. Almost anything done one the web falls under these patents, anyone using the internet for ANY purpose is “stealing intellectual property”, ( a term you use even though exists no crime that is called anywhere remotely that, even the concept of intellectual “property” is a system of rights limited in time and space, and differing depending on the location of the participants of that interaction etc etc etc, ie the legal situation is not at all as clear as you pretend it to be, and in any case it is perfectly legal until the specific persons are convicted and damages awarded, also bear in mind that it is not allowed to pick and choose who you sue, if you sue one of us, you have to sue us all, or your case will be thrown out )
Isn’t the Standard IEEE 802.15 Wireless Personal Area Network (WPAN) technology based on Bluetooth? (Bluetooth v1.1 I believe)
How is the Bluetooth Standard Interests Group (SIG) and the IEEE Closed Standards body related?
After all, other Wireless Technologies like the IEEE 802.11 suite are being implemented in Linux and I have heard no problems thereof.
Wouldnt such a list fall under free speech? Maybe everyone should post it everywhere kinda like we did with dvdcss
I could only think of a single, semi-valid reason a member of the SIG could want the listing removed: It shows that almost all Bluetooth dongles are exactly the same. Which means, it makes no difference if you buy an expensive 3Com dongle or some no-name cheapo $10 thingy, they are both the same dongles by CSR – different packaging, different Windows-software, and a _very_ different SRP. But that’s it.
what is illegal here???
naming blutooth isn’t because it fall under fair use