[linux_desktop_user]

I am another Linux desktop user who is disappointed that the newer USB 3.0 products do not work with Linux.

As I understand it from posts by DisplayLink staff on this forum, there are two problems here:
1. DisplayLink are of the opinion that there is insufficient demand for a Linux driver to justify DisplayLink's software development costs incurred in creating one; and
2. The USB 3.0 products use some sort of encryption scheme intended to prevent copyright violation, and DisplayLink are concerned that release of source code able to drive their USB 3.0 products (or specifications of the wire protocol used) would permit people to break this in some way, and thus be able to violate copyrights.

Could someone from DisplayLink please confirm the above, or correct my understand if I'm wrong?

I would have thought that the number of posts here would cause DisplayLink to change their mind regarding demand.

In any case, problem number one above does not need to be solved - DisplayLink do not need to write a Linux driver. There are many competent C programmers (and I am one of them) who could write such a driver, if specifications were available.
This brings us on to the second problem, the undocumented encryption scheme used.

I would just like to confirm: so the only thing preventing the copyright infringers of this world from using DisplayLink's products to aid their activities is the security by obscurity gained by not releasing source or specifications for the USB 3.0 devices, is that the case?

If not, then there exist additional effective protections, so specifications (or even driver source) should be released, so that we in the community can develop drivers ourselves.

If so, then we in the community need to get going breaking the encryption used, so that we can then write working drivers.

Of course, in the latter scenario, it would be rather sad for the content industry if, in their attempt to force DisplayLink to protect their content, they in fact multiplied many-fold the number of skilled people attempting to break the protection scheme.
How ironic that instead of fighting only the copyright-infringers, they would have to fight those copyright-infringers *and* people like me who just want this hardware to work with Free drivers.

This reminds me of the DVD story, where due to the 'protection' afforded by CSS, in order merely to play DVDs under Linux, it was necessary to break CSS entirely, and then Jon's DeCSS code got integrated into the DVD-copyer programs, and the rest (as they say) is history.

Is this a repeat of the same silly story? Please tell me it's not.