USB-IF says 0x1209 is an obsolete VID.

[parkrrrr]

Not that it matters in the slightest, but this document from USB-IF lists 0x1209 as an obsolete VID. The link from their "Information for Developers" page says "The VIDs included on this list have been obsoleted and are not valid."

0x1209 is 4617 in decimal. I can't begin to fathom why they thought decimal was the right choice for that column.

If nothing else, the part of the main pid.codes webpage that says "We have been gifted a Vendor ID by a company that was issued one by USB-IF and has since ceased trading; they obtained the Vendor ID before the USB-IF changed their licensing terms to prohibit transfers or subassignments." should probably make mention of this fact, just in case some USB host implementation out there actually blacklists obsoleted VIDs.

[chrysn]

I think that some more research would need to go into that statement to avoid spreading possibly unwarranted fear of unusability. Is there any statement from the IF of what they mean by "obsolete", especially what they recommend host implementations do about it, or whether they think of reassigning those IDs to new members? (I can't really imagine an USB host stack blacklisting devices just because USB IF claims there are no devices under that VID out there).

[parkrrrr]

Nothing more than what it says on the "Information for Developers" page, saying that they're not valid. There doesn't appear to be any recommendation that I can find.

[chrysn]

Hm, then a statement on the about page could maybe say:

The USB-IF is listing the VID used by pid.codes as obsolete and invalid on their developer information page, along with the code points of similar projects (like OpenMoko) and several companies' VIDs. There is no indication that they would attempt to re-assign those IDs, nor that operating systems would reject them based on that list.

[parkrrrr]

I think that seems like a reasonable phrasing.

[tannewt]

Anyone want to make a PR to update the website? I'm happy to review it.