Slashdot Mirror
Bluetooth SIG Attacks Linux Bluetooth List
Karma Sucks writes "As reported in the latest free edition of LWN the Bluetooth Qualification Administrator has demanded that the Linux BlueZ project take down the highly-useful Bluetooth hardware compatibility list for Linux with the intimation 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. Anyone know who this member was?"
This issue is almost one year old. The page under link was last modified in April.
Who hangs out near Belelvue, WA and would object to anything linux-related?
If the g'vt kept the data on you that google does you'd better believe you'd be calling it "doing evil"
In what way exactly is it illegal to post a list of information like this, even with all the dumb laws the USA is passing these days...?
This happened back in March. it still sucks though.
w ww.holtmann.org/linux/bluetooth/devices.html
The list is available at: http://web.archive.org/web/20050310010832/http://
Chris "Ng" Jones
cmsj@tenshu.net
www.tenshu.net
I don't care. If there is no open-source driver for Linux, I simply won't buy the product. If they can live with that, I can do so too.
Ok, maybe my English isn't as good as I thought.
But wtf is the problem anyway?
easy - cant they just rename it the "unofficial compatibility list" and put in some "this is nto official bla bla bla in small print" or better yet - tell the bluetooth peopel to get lost
Please note that the use and distribution of non-qualified products is a violation of the Bluetooth License Agreement. As neither of these products have been qualified using Linux it is illegal to make them available for public use. The products haven't been "qualified" so why is everyone bitching and moaning. Instead wasting time and resources crying foul, why not take that same effort and qualify them. I'm sure if MS went and used some source code without posting INSERT_LICENSE_SCHEMA_HERE the community would cry foul, why is it a dual edged sword. Funny thing is people can comment on the "evil corporation" (myself included), but being this is a hardware, why not qualify it and shut up the skeptics instead of rambling on like crybabies.
MoFscker
Bluetooth products have to pass a test-suite. Not all of the software might have been tested or be able to pass the test.
:-P
I believe they still should be able to publish the list, they just should must avoid somehow to carry the "Bluetooth"-tag. Maybe Linux should just make up a fancy new protocol name like "Redbeard" or so for the protocol
I'm still trying to figure out what people mean by 'social skills' here.
What I'm curious about is what is this license agreement and did the guy running this list agree to it?
Anyone know who this member was?
CowboyNeal, of course. Any doubts?
In what way exactly is it illegal to post a list of information like this, even with all the dumb laws the USA is passing these days...?
It's just like the GPL, you only have the right to distribute if you comply with certain terms. If I make an appliance that uses Linux internally and I refuse to provide the source code to the kernel isn't that illegal also? Still a dumb law in your mind?
Since when do you have to agree to a license to provide a commentary? I believe this to be fair use. Since when did we agree to waive our free speech rights?
I may be missing something obvious, as I never used this list before seeing this article, but I didn't understand the statement:
"...a registered member of the Bluetooth SIG complained about the non-qualified use of Bluetooth products on this page..."
The cynic in me ASSUMES "member" is Microsoft, but my inner cynic is sometimes wrong. My question is what "Bluetooth products" were on that page? To be "on the page" implies text or a list, not a device. Did the BlueZ page copy some table or something from a Bluetooth source? It might have helped if he had posted the whole complaint, not just this statement, but maybe he lawyer-beaten into only posting that much.
"Whether or not you're selling them makes no difference."
Selling what? As I understand it, this was just a compatibility list. What might they have been selling-yet weren't.
"The problem is due to the distribution of them from your Web site."
Again, what are "them" that they are distributing, but not selling?
"Please note that the use and distribution of non-qualified products is a violation of the Bluetooth License Agreement."
Once more, what products? This hints at calling things "Bluetoth" that are not, which would be a trademark issue, I guess. But what product are they talking about?
"As neither of these products have been qualified using Linux it is illegal to make them available for public use."
'Neither' means two 'products' have not been 'qualified' (by Bluetooth SIG, I gather), but what products and how are they illegal? I was looking for something like a claim to be "Bluetooth" without permission, but is that what the BlueZ list did? If so, how does that become a takedown instead of a rewording? For example, if they had said "The following devices are Bluetooth certified on Linux", they could just say "The following devices, which are Bluetooth certified under other operating systems, work under Linux too, though that is not certified by the Bluetooth SIG."
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced. - Geek's corollary to Clarke's law
I wonder if the author of the list contacted EFF for some legal assistance? It would appear to me that listing consumer opinions of how one product works with another can not be illegal.
Granted, saying the list is a BlueZ Bluetooth(tm) Hardware Support List when the BlueZ stack is an officially tested stack seems reasonable if the Bluetooth "standard" is well defined. But even then, if their issue is that the hardware was not tested on BlueZ on GNU/Linux, then change the list title, don't remove the list. Also, one would think that a product tested on one "official" stack would work on another "official" stack.... But, IMO, it was/is the list title/heading which is misleading( if it really is ), not the data.
It would be interesting to know what it takes to get hardware tested on another approved OS/stack? And why does this seem to be an OS thing and not a "stack" based issue... THAT seems strange.
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
His name was "Anonymous Coward"
No, not me. Wrong Anonymous Coward. One of the other ones.
It never ceases to amaze me how so many organizations and their lawyers think they can stifle free speech on the internet. The internet just doesn't respond that way. They're only highlighting the obvious need for this information. I wonder how many people didn't know about this before their action who now do and will simply google their way to it...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this now render the issue moot? The reason the SIG was interested in taking the list down was because BlueZ wasn't qualified. Now it is (or rather, back in April it became) qualified, so what is the issue here?
The list still does not seem to be up, although I didn't look very hard for it. So is there something still blocking it?
Technocrat. Not a lot of users, though.
Here is the page as it used to look before it was brought down:w ww.holtmann.org/linux/bluetooth/devices.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20050310010832/http://
I think the issue is this. There is a rigorous framework in place for how to qualify your devices, and the Bluetooth interest group is making a lot money conducting that qualification. In fact, it might be their main source of income. It's not necessarily a bad thing either if the testing is good and helpful, and the price for it is fair (I assume it's not, but anyway).
Having third party compatibility lists cropping up undermines the power the group has to force hardware vendors to pay for qualification.
Also, I guess the "illegal" part is bogus as far as the site owner goes. It is probably true that the makers of Bluetooth devices have a license agreement with the group that prohibits them from marketing their device as compatible with a specific environment without having gone through the qualification. The group might want to imply that it is illegal for those companies to be on that list, and therefore illegal to publish it.
It might also be that the site owner through involvement with BlueZ actually has signed an agreement to follow guidelines of the group, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
Not a lot of stories either for that matter (still in my aggregator though).
If you click through to the original comment by the administrator who removed the list, he didn't have any clue what the hell their point was either - this is just a damn compatibility list, they're not distributing anything other than a list of names - but removed it anyway just in case.
For the love of God, please learn to spell "ridiculous"!!!
Actually, it happens that if you install the BlueZ stack, you can access bluetooth devices without any special drivers. I went out and picked up a Linksys USB bluetooth key and it fired right up and works without a hitch. There are a bunch of standard tools used to perform discovery of other devices and establish connections, and various programs to implement the protocols needed to talk to specific features on these devices.
We need MUCH stronger SLAPP laws. I'd like to see filing a SLAPP suit made a federal crime, with jail time and HUGE fines behind it. Possibly even severe punishment for any lawyer involved in such a thing. Perhaps we should all write our Congressmen and bring the issue up. I tend to be pretty cynical about them, but it can't hurt to ask.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
I stopped reading technocrat when they started posting long political rants against the war, I get enough of that from users on slashdot. I don't mind political rants in the comments, they get modded down as off topic usually, but when they post them as storys on the front page, it's time to look elsewhere for my daily dose of tech news.
I just checked out technocrat, and it just seems like a poor copy of slashdot. It is kind of funny how most of the stories don't have any posts. Maybe all of the trolls here that just want to get first post could move to that site.
I also wasn't that impressed with the quality of the comments on digg.com. The site's news is okay sometimes, but I like the mix on slashdot, which is why I read this site.
However, for quality entertainment, I like www.i-am-bored.com
Where else can you see urban ninja, or a semi 'drifting' for three minutes, or play random flash games. I guess this is off-topic, but I don't really understand why the site we're supposed to be talking about didn't just comply, get certified and then re-display the list.
Maybe half a dozen a day? Though the he percentage that interests me is pretty high. Much higher than here. But you don't get many comments, and that's what I like best about slashdot. Despite all the silliness, there are still good, insightful posters on most every topic.
"I am keeping the _features_document_ [...] If the HCI Version field is filled in this table, then this device should also work perfect with Linux"
click on "features document" in the linked article.
A trademark owner has no power over nominative uses of the mark such as the subject list (or this discussion, for that matter).
A judge decides whether or not a use is nominative, and when you bring in judges, you bring in trademark attorneys, whose services tend to run too expensive for individuals to afford.
"Anyone know who this member was?"
What? Now we're a mafia?
Should someone do anything against us OSS/slashdot crowd, do we find the person's name and attack humiliate him/her? Think of the SCO guy. His name is associated with evil throughout the IT world now, thanks to sites like slashdot. He might deserve it, but most people dont follow up and check whether he's actually as wrong as we're made to think (slashdot articles have been wrong/exaggerating on more than one occasion).
A recent artice accused Rogers execs of having links to terrorists. This is an extremely baseless accusation based on phone calls to somewhere in the middle east. But this shows we're turning from being a bazaar to a bit like a mafia. (Open your sources.... or else). Do article moderators and editors know how much personal damage can they cause?
"Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
Read all about it!
HTH HAND
The filesystem is the package manager
I believe you meant we need anti-SLAPP laws.
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
...is a terrorist. Don't you watch Fox News?
In response to this story I did a little research and sent a letter to the website's author with some quick legal analysis and a suggestion to seek actual legal counsel. For those who are interested, here is the quick and dirty part of the letter:
It would be helpful to get a copy of the full letter from SIG, but I gather their central claim is a trademark violation. On this issue you have several possible defenses. First, I suggest your strongest argument is based on the unavailability of a generic term by which to describe Bluetooth technology. This is similar to the situation Kleenex found it self many years ago... by using the term Kleenex to describe their product and never using the generic term (tissue), they destroyed their own mark. A company who owns a mark, even a patented mark, MUST provide a term that can be used to describe their product by the competition. I reviewed the entire SIG site and could find no generic term to describe Bluetooth.
Second you have an arguable fair use defense. Your site is making commentary on the products in question, noting that these devices will work in Linux. That is classified as criticism and protected under the First Amendment.
Only 120 characters... who can summarize their entire world understanding in 120 characters?!
From where I've just downloaded it so that I can mirror it (but not until the Slashdot feeding frenzy has died down, I don't want to slaughter my own servers).
As I am not and never have been a party to the 'Bluetooth License Agreement', and since the list is copyright Marcel Holtmann, not the Bluetooth SIG, I think they can go whistle about asking me to take it down.
Why don't you - all of you - do the same? Remember to get all of
I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
Let me get this straight, some guy posted a list of bluetooth devices that work on linux. Basically he stated that device X works on linux, which is just a fact. How is he breaking any laws?
No one owns the word "Bluetooth". Trademarks are not copyrights.
Maybe I should have made myself more clear what I meant by "tag".
It would infringe for any product listed that named itself "Bluetooth something". Then there would be some grey area for products that had to do with bluetooth, but were somewhat remote from the actual device, in this case it would be fair use to call it e.g. "protocol adapter for bluetooth".
IMHO, this is not a situation were intellectual property is claimed too unfairly, since it offers some protection to the customer who can be sure that his bluetooth device will work with other bluetooth devices. The costly testing procedure creates a barrier to entry that is somewhat unfair, but as I said you could work around that by not using the bluetooth tag too directly, it is like "firewire" vs "IEEE 1394".
I agree with you that it should be possible to publish a list, especially since a look shows that none of the devices listed in the document that is still up is carrying the "bluetooth"-tag. I am also somewhat befuddled how a bluetooth-certified product can not be bluetooth-certified anymore when Linux is involved, as long as the product is a separate device from the linux system. When I wrote my comment, I assumed the list would contain software that was know to run on Linux and communicate with Bluetooth, not a list of devices that could be connected to Linux as well. The former would need to be certified, the latter not.
There is an interesting angle to this regarding such products: if SIG insists that a product may not be listed as "bluetooth" unless it works with Linux(certified), then this effectively would be an endorsement of Linux, and any SIG member could ask for cancellation of the right to bear the "bluetooth"-tag of any offending bluetooth device.
I'm still trying to figure out what people mean by 'social skills' here.
"Yo, Vern! Lookit dis new COBALT FANG enabled headset I got me!!1!"
Well maybe for fun eveyone one can put this list on their webistes,blogs etc etc. blatantly stating here is my linux blootooth copmpatability list. Put it everywhere like we did with dvdcss
Please tell me it is.......
I wrote to Michael Kirwan, Bluetooth Qualification Administrator, back in July asking why Marcel's list was illegal and if I could host the list on my website as I had not agreed to the Bluetooth License Agreement. The response is so generic I'm sure he won't mind me posting it here:
Anonymous Coward,
This is apart of the Agreements that Members of Bluetooth sign up to.
Several questions have been received from Members to the BQA reflector
requesting whether or not it's acceptable to use the Bluetooth
technology in open source applications without qualification.
Members are reminded that the sale or distribution of Bluetooth Products
that have not been qualified via the Bluetooth Qualification Program is
prohibited by the Bluetooth SIG Member Agreements. Additionally, the
Bluetooth SIG encourages Members to respect that open source licenses
may not allow including Bluetooth within their Protocol Stacks.
Members who desire to qualify open source applications that allow using
the Bluetooth technology within their licenses can do so in one of the
following ways;
As a Bluetooth Component:
A partial Bluetooth implementation of the Bluetooth Protocol may be
listed as either a non-pre-tested Bluetooth Component, or as a
pre-tested Bluetooth Component with Covered Functionality (has passed
declared testing requirements). Please note that Bluetooth Components
are allowed to be qualified as a partial product type to enable their
distribution for a full End Product qualification. This allows
Bluetooth Component manufacturers to distribute part of the complete
solution to their customers who in-turn will integrate the Component
into their products creating a complete Bluetooth End Product.
Thus, an open source stack containing a partial Bluetooth implementation
may be used in creating a product which in turn must be qualified as a
Bluetooth End Product.
As a Bluetooth Subsystem:
A partial Bluetooth implementation of the Bluetooth Protocol may be
listed as a Subsystem with Compliant Portion (has passed declared
testing requirements). Subsystems are allowed to be qualified as a
product type to enable their use in combination with other Bluetooth
Subsystems. Together, the combination of Subsystems represents a
complete Bluetooth solution (moreover, and End Product).
Subsystems permit partial Bluetooth implementations to be made and sold
to end users (e.g., OS stacks, or USB dongles). Subsystems allow
members the ability to create and combine portions of the Bluetooth
Specification together and qualify them as a complete combination. To
qualify a Subsystem, it must be proven that it can be used to create a
complete Bluetooth solution (RF, BB, LM, L2CAP, SDP and GAP). Using the
Subsystem, it is possible to take 2 (or more) Subsystems which have
never been combined before and qualify them. An open source stack could
qualify as a Bluetooth Subsystem, and the associated CSL might list (for
example), a USB dongle Bluetooth Subsystem supporting the lower layer
Protocols which complete the Bluetooth stack. Then such a combination -
a PC with the open source stack and Bluetooth installed, together with
that USB dongle - could be sold as a qualified Bluetooth combination.
As a Bluetooth End Product:
A complete Bluetooth solution (containing Core Specs RF, BB, LM, L2CAP,
SDP, GAP plus any desired additional Profile applications) may be listed
as a Bluetooth End Product. Thus, an open source stack, either a
Component or a Subsystem, may be combined with other Components or
Subsystems to make an End Product qualification. End Products can be
combined or sold as is without limitations on the license. End Products
represent a complete Bluetooth wireless solution.
Regards,
Michael J. Kirwan | Bluetooth Qualification Administrator - BQA |
Bluetooth SIG, Inc. | o: 913.766.1636 | m: 913.206.7303 |
www.bluetooth.org | www.bluetooth.com
IANAL, but as most of the comments here imply, this looks like a heinously bogus legal threat. There's got to be some money out there to defend this guy. He isn't selling products, he isn't selling information, and I bet he'd be willing to take the word "Bluetooth" off his page and describe it as "popular short range wireless technology" or something if it really mattered. I can't imagine it would cost much to defend this: it gets to court, judge throws it out as ridiculous, game over. I don't blame him for being sheepish about fighting lawyers, but when you have the high, high, high ground, we as the F/OSS community should be able to pool our resources and defend this sort of thing. Anyone listening at the EFF?
/usr/src/linux-2.6.14-ck6/drivers/bluetooth/hci_us b.c
/*
HCI USB driver for Linux Bluetooth protocol stack (BlueZ)
Copyright (C) 2000-2001 Qualcomm Incorporated
Written 2000,2001 by Maxim Krasnyansky <maxk@qualcomm.com>
Copyright (C) 2003 Maxim Krasnyansky <maxk@qualcomm.com>
This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as
published by the Free Software Foundation;
</snip>
While I am definately interested in Linux HCL lists for any device, I really wouldnt sweat the bluetooth ones.
Bluetooth is over-controlled and it is not (yet) an ISO standard. It is fairly shortrange, it has a very expensive barrier to entry, low bandwidth. It is complicated and limited to develop for.
As a hardware developer and robot builder I looked at bluetooth, and categorically decided we will not be using it. It is just not worth it. WiFi is actually cheaper, and you can do so much more with it. I do not think bluetooth has a future, it is fad, and really has not captured the market place much more than Wireless phone hotsyncing and wireless phone earpeices. Outside of those applications - it is useless.
Activities like this are just rendering the technology more useless and obsolete ahead of its time. Give them enough rope...
OrionRobots.co.uk - Robots From sol
Hey dumbass... Read the post not just the title. This wasn't inflamitory at all. Why was it marked troll?
If you have ever used linux and wanted any decent hardware accelleration you would know what the hell the parent was talking about.