Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Bluetooth SIG Attacks Linux Bluetooth List

Posted by Hemos on from the battle-royale dept.

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?"

7 of 127 comments (clear)

  1. Illegal...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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...?

  2. So what? by Cinquero · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  3. Bluetooth testsuite by RedLaggedTeut · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Bluetooth products have to pass a test-suite. Not all of the software might have been tested or be able to pass the test.

    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 :-P

    --
    I'm still trying to figure out what people mean by 'social skills' here.
    1. Re:Bluetooth testsuite by LDoggg_ · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It still doesn't make sense though. You refered to Bluetooth in your post and I'm guessing you didn't ask Bluetooth for permission to do that.

      He isn't trying to sell his post.

      --

      "If they have both, tell them we use Linux. And if they have that, tell them the computers are down." -Dave Chapelle
  4. License Agreement? by asdfghjklqwertyuiop · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The rest of the quote from LWN states:


    Please note that the use and distribution of non-qualified products is a violation of the Bluetooth License Agreement.


    What I'm curious about is what is this license agreement and did the guy running this list agree to it?

    1. Re:License Agreement? by Danse · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Bluetooth is a propietary technology; standardisation is being worked upon (IEEE 801.15). There are several patents involved on the technology, therefore companies that wish to use it sign a licensing agreement. I can't get a hand on the exact terms, though I read that it's royalty free.

      AFAIK, you don't need a license to talk about something on your website, even if it's patented or trademarked or what have you. I think the complaint was a bunch of hand-waving threats that unfortunately had the intended effect without having any legal weight behind it.

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
  5. We're a mafia? by mnmn · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "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