From: David F. <dav...@ya...> - 2004-09-09 16:26:34
|
Jon, I think we are probably in agreement,except for the first sentence. I don't agree with a marriage license but it certainly applies to me. My issue at this point is that I am individual, I have no corporate protection. If gumstix was to assume liability and open source a driver, it is easy to do. For the PXA255 chip, there is really no benefit to the primary feature of SD, the 4-bit interface. The 255 only supports one bit mode. David. --- Jon Mayo <jm...@rm...> wrote: > My understanding of the issue is that if you > don't agree to the SD Card > Association's license, then it cannot apply to > you. Doing I/O on a > device violates neither copyright nor > trademark. And there are two > rumors floating around. One is that there are > no software patent related > parts to SD. And the other rumor is that there > is a software patent to > the "secure" part of SD. The rest of SD is > pretty much like MMC with > some enhanced I/O, and there are plenty of > other buses and serial > transports that use the same kind of I/O > techniques so it's pretty > doubtful that I/O would have special patents. > > Now advertising that the device supports SD is > probably a trademark > issue and SD Card Association would require > Gumstix, Inc. to become a > member to gain the ability to advertise that in > an overt way. There are > many organizations that protect themselves > purely with trademarks. With > those organizations you can make something > completely identical and > compatible and unlicensed, as long as you don't > violate the trademarks > you're good to go. > > It would be interesting if we could look up any > patent numbers related > to SD (and possibly MMC). Also filing a patent > requires disclosure, so > someone other than people developing the driver > should look up the > patent to prevent any claims of reverse > engineering from being > invalidated. (reverse engineering is legal > under the right set of > circumstances). > > Also if you do not want to access the secure > parts of SD then there is > no DMCA issue either. (even though the security > on SD is a total joke) > > disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nor do I pretend > to be a lawyer. This is > not legal advice. This is all from the > perspective of US laws, the laws > in your country may differ greatly on this > issue. > -- > Jon |