Go Down

Topic: AVR with embedded USB? (Read 6 times) previous topic - next topic

vputz

There's a fair bit of use for turning that USB port into a proper USB device, though (particularly a lot of HID applications).  It's less to do with speed than with seamlessness.  I personally would love to have a "proper USB" support rather than just bit-banging with the AVRUSB library (which I'm doing now because I want to use the Arduino).

I'm all for it, basically, just like I'd love to see a better option than SoftwareSerial for serial interfaces (even if it means a little more add-on circuitry).

zaiq

Don't know if anyone's interested, but see my post "Arduino for AT90USB1287 / AT90USBKey demo board with Eclipse"

Jestersage

Thanks zaiq. read my reply.

As to Paul Stoffregen, I would rather you do not decieve others by using -duino. While we legally cannot stop you, -duino implies true compatibility to Arduino, not just in hardware and software but also how they share, which is in GPL/LGPL. You may see MIT as less restrictive, but we do see it as a loophole for people to decieve the openness of a platform.

Paul Stoffregen

#18
Jan 30, 2009, 01:24 pm Last Edit: Jan 30, 2009, 01:27 pm by pjrc Reason: 1
Clearly you're very unhappy with me, apparently due to using the -duino suffix, and because I used the MIT license?

Would it help if I were to switch to LGPL & MIT dual license in the next release?  Or maybe just LGPL and no mention of MIT at all?

That USB code was developed separately, and is also released as a stand-alone project intended for use in C language projects, totally separate from the Arduino IDE and wiring API.  For that, I chose the MIT license for few reasons.  1: it's short and simple.  2: it's OSI approved.  3: everybody claims it is compatible with all other open source licenses.  I specifically wanted a license that's as compatible as possible with any other project, and MIT seemed like a good idea.  I never imagined anyone would take exception to that decision.

Anyway, the only reason there's MIT licensed files in there is because I copied them from my other work and because OSI says the MIT license is compatible I didn't bother to change it.  But I could certainly change that to LGPL in a future release.  I'm an engineer, not an attorney, so these finer license details really don't mean a lot to me, and I've based most of my decision making on the what I've read from the OSI website.

You also seem pretty upset about the name.  I'd first like to point out the FAQ that appears on the Arduino website.   http://arduino.cc/en/Main/FAQ

Quote

What should I call my boards?

If you're making your own board, come up with your own name! This will allow people identify you with your products and help you to build a brand. Be creative: try to suggest what people might use the board for, or emphasize the form factor, or just pick a random word that sounds cool. "Arduino" is a trademark of Arduino team and should not be used for unofficial variants. If you're interested in having your design included in the official Arduino product line, please see the So you want to make an Arduino document and contact the Arduino team. Note that while we don't attempt to restrict uses of the "duino" suffix, its use causes the Italians on the team to cringe (apparently it sounds terrible); you might want to avoid it.


As nearly as I can tell, this seems to say that the name "Arduino" is what implies true compatibility and while the -duino suffix many sound terrible to Italians, its use it not restricted.

As a practical matter, there are lots and lots of projects using the -duino suffix to communicate they are somehow intended to be used together with the Audino IDE, or an official Arduino board or an unofficial clone or unofficial non-clone or whatever it might be called.  If the -duino suffix were meant to imply "true compatibility" (your message being the first I have ever seen suggesting it), the reality is the suffix is already in very widespread use for a very diverse range of projects.  That really isn't so surprising considering the FAQ.

It's certainly never been my intention to deceive anyone.  I've tried to be very clear.  Many people have offered advise and several times I have improved the web page, trying to make it as clear as possible.  In fact, it even says 'While many types of sketches can run, Teensy is NOT an "Arduino clone" due to the substantial technical differences. The Teensy hardware and Teensyduino software add-on are NOT endorsed or supported by the Arduino developer team.'

I've tried, perhaps not successfully, to apply the -duino suffix only to the software add-on that gets included into the Aduino IDE, but NOT to the hardware itself.

I'm really sorry you're so upset with me.  I have listened to feedback from many people and tried to incorporate suggestions where I can.  I have tried to follow the published guidelines on naming, and I've tried to follow OSI's advise regarding open source licenses.  I've edited the web page many times to clarify things.  I am only human and far from perfect, but I am continuing to make incremental improvements as I can.

dcb

Has anyone messed with bootloadHID recently?
http://www.obdev.at/products/avrusb/bootloadhid.html

or it's parent, avrusbboot?
http://www.fischl.de/avrusbboot/

It is all open source as far as I can see, though I have a feeling we've been here before :)

Paul, only problem is that random person X cannot verify your claims without ordering your stuff, because it isn't entirely open.  And so who is going to send you money to help you build your credentials and reputation so you can have a monopoly on your hardware?  I don't think this is the right forum for non-open projects personally.

Go Up