Re: [Gumstix-users] Secure Digital Enabled u-boot

[Jon M. <jm...@rm...>]

if you didn't agree to the license how did you get married? you 
shouldn't sign things you don't agree to. (don't get me started on 
political rants about the silliness of having to get the government's 
permission to be married)

You might want to contact the EFF for help. They are designed to help 
individual developers protect themselves from corporations.

that stinks about not having the faster transfer modes on the 255.

David Farrell wrote:

>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
>>    
>>
>
>
>-------------------------------------------------------
>This SF.Net email is sponsored by: YOU BE THE JUDGE. Be one of 170
>Project Admins to receive an Apple iPod Mini FREE for your judgement on
>who ports your project to Linux PPC the best. Sponsored by IBM. 
>Deadline: Sept. 13. Go here: http://sf.net/ppc_contest.php
>_______________________________________________
>gumstix-users mailing list
>gum...@li...
>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gumstix-users
>
>  
>