Arduino Terms of Service and Privacy Policy update: setting the record straight
64 points
17 hours ago
| 16 comments
| blog.arduino.cc
| HN
cornonthecobra
5 hours ago
[-]
"we have been open-source long before it was fashionable"

An abridged timeline:

1960s to 1980s: hobbyist and academic/research computing create thriving public domain software ecosystems (literally the birth of FOSS)

1983: The GNU Project begins

1989: The World Wide Web is created

1991: Linus Torvalds posts the first Linux kernel to USENET

1992: 386BSD is released; Slackware is created

1993: NetBSD is forked; Debian is created

1994: FreeBSD 2 is released

1995: Red Hat is created

[a decade of FOSS and the internet changing computing and research forever]

2005: A collection of low-cost microcontroller education tools, benefiting from half a century of FOSS, is formalized into something called "Arduino"

reply
kees99
57 minutes ago
[-]
Also, didn't early Arduino heavily borrow from another open-source project, "Processing"?

Processing was/is graphics-centered, so that's where Arduino's term "sketch" come from, if you ever wondered.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Processing_screen_shot.pn...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Arduino_IDE_-_Blink.png

reply
drzaiusx11
44 minutes ago
[-]
"Wiring", which constitutes Arduino's primary API surface, was taken wholesale from Hernando Barragán's 2003 master's thesis project. It was a fork of processing for microcontrollers and was not written by the Arduino team: Massimo Banzi, David Cuartielles, David Mellis, Gianluca Martino, and Tom Igo.
reply
shevy-java
4 hours ago
[-]
> 1989: Tim Berners-Lee invents the World Wide Web

I think ideas etc... existed before that, e. g. DARPA and what Alan Kay said.

Tim mostly pushed forward a simple protocol that worked. Would be interesting to see how much Tim really generated de-novo, but in general I disagree that he "invented" the world wide web as such. That would seem unfair to many other people - just like Alan Kay once said, you see further by standing on the shoulders of giants (translation: you benefitted from earlier inventions and ideas, made by other people).

reply
cornonthecobra
4 hours ago
[-]
As I was writing it out, I knew someone was going to complain.

It's an abridged timeline. Brevity because the point is the date, not the fine detail.

But since I don't care to argue on the internet... edited.

reply
exasperaited
2 hours ago
[-]
> Would be interesting to see how much Tim really generated de-novo, but in general I disagree that he "invented" the world wide web as such.

Eh? What do you mean it would be interesting to see? It's well-documented. Not controversial or hidden.

The HTTP protocol yes. But also the browser/editor app, WorldWideWeb, a web server for it, and the URL scheme, are literal Berners-Lee inventions. HTML may be an SGML language but it's his SGML language.

He's not claiming and nobody is claiming he invented hypertext (he would say Ted Nelson and Alan Kay).

He absolutely invented the fundamentals of the end-to-end web technology as we use it. There was no functioning internet open-hypermedia system before 1990. It's just not in question and it's kind of disingenuous to imply he didn't do much.

(Defining down "invent" in this way is also disingenuous to all inventors, who all do their work in the context of prior art)

reply
12_throw_away
11 hours ago
[-]
"We are Arduino. We are open. We’re not going anywhere."

-- statement from Qualcomm without a single human being's name on it

reply
camkego
6 hours ago
[-]
If you walk into the head office of Qualcomm (in Sorrento Vally, San Diego, CA) and you see the the "Patent Wall" in the entrance covered with almost 1400 patents, it's kind of hard to wonder just how open Arduino will be.
reply
shevy-java
4 hours ago
[-]
You are right - the whole blog entry has zero names mentioned. An anonymous opinion piece indeed.

Could have almost been written by AI, but the content seemed so angry that I think it must have been a corporate spokesperson who just woke up, read people being concerned and angrily hacked away at the keys at the keyboard.

reply
anonymousiam
10 hours ago
[-]
reply
RobotToaster
7 hours ago
[-]
> We are open.

Except that half their boards and the entire cloud platform aren't open source at all.

reply
shevy-java
4 hours ago
[-]
Yeah. This can also be the intro: "and so it begins".

E. g. qualcom stepwise swallowing the infrastructure and pulling the chair under the hobbyists community.

reply
PaulHoule
16 hours ago
[-]
Sorry, you got bought by Qualcomm and that was suicide.
reply
1718627440
2 hours ago
[-]
What I don't get is how what they do is even legally possible, since the libraries have all F/OSS licenses (MIT, LGPL, GPL, APL), and they don't even own the sole copyright to most things.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45978802

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45985663

reply
kvakvs
10 hours ago
[-]
I don't get it, do we keep the pitchforks out, or do we stash the pitchforks?
reply
shevy-java
4 hours ago
[-]
It may be over already. I mean, the pitchforks will change what exactly? Looks like qualcom pwns I mean owns the arduino ecosystem now. Just like a killed-by-Google meme, qualcom may soon start its own killed-by-qualcom trend.
reply
bsder
3 hours ago
[-]
You can keep the pitchforks out, but you sadly need to assume Arduino is dead.

Of course, if you weren't already making that assumption when Qualcomm bought them, I don't know what to tell you ...

reply
beefnugs
9 hours ago
[-]
"we collect data for your privacy" they have no idea what words or actions mean anymore.

There is no such thing as being purchased by a large company while retaining anything non-evil. If anything this is the remaining employees who were lied to their face about remaining whatever they were

reply
latexr
4 hours ago
[-]
This is so full of vapid corporate speak, it’s ripe for one of those joke “translation” posts:

> We’ve heard some questions and concerns following our recent Terms of Service and Privacy Policy updates.

Translation: Y’all are angry about us changing what we stood for.

> We are thankful our community cares enough to engage with us and we believe transparency and open dialogue are foundational to Arduino.

Translation: You fuckers are loud and this is blowing up in our faces, so we need to do damage control fast or the acquisition will be worthless.

reply
NalNezumi
3 hours ago
[-]
Anyone have any advice for Arduino replacement? I recently (unknowingly) bought a R4 for some LED projects but knowing now the background, I'm wondering if there's any other alternative for hobby (noob level) micro controller project
reply
petre
2 hours ago
[-]
Any ESP32, RP2040 or RP2350 board. The last two use external QSPI flash, so hobby projects only. There are no fuses to set to read protect the firmware.
reply
Neywiny
39 minutes ago
[-]
Just to be clear, some micros (STM32s come to mind) have what they call "on the fly decryption" for external flash. Basically, if the micros wanted to, they would. I think ESP32s are also using qspi flashes but they're integrated in package? Maybe that's changed but that's how I vaguely remember it
reply
majso
2 hours ago
[-]
nrF52
reply
healsdata
9 hours ago
[-]
Adafruit acted a bit shady here. Their original post includes:

"Military weird things"

Reading the ToS, the two mentions of military are "don't use our AI product for military use" and in the export and trade controls section.

How are either of those weird?

reply
rockskon
9 hours ago
[-]
Given the ambiguity of the phrase "military use" when the military does, in-fact, use it for things the military does - I am not confident in the slightest with Arduino's use of language here.
reply
shevy-java
4 hours ago
[-]
Indeed. Also because any big organisation or corporation can both do evil and good. Often research projects with guarantees to release knowledge or some other improvements such as to software projects under a permissive licence.
reply
healsdata
9 hours ago
[-]
How would you want to see this further clarified?

> Military Use: Use by or for any military organization or for any military purpose, including but not limited to projects sponsored or paid for by military organizations, or use by the U.S. Department of Defense (except for DARPA), U.S. Armed Forces, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. intelligence agencies, or any foreign counterparts of the foregoing.

reply
rockskon
7 hours ago
[-]
Gee, I dunno, how about by not limiting its scope exclusively to AI usage by the military?

Also - given how many tech companies involved in AI have done an about-face on military usage of it, I'm increasingly seeing it as an empty promise.

reply
ptorrone
5 hours ago
[-]
the carve out is weird and usually open-source does not say, no to the navy using it BUT, it's OK for DARPA ...

> Military Use: Use by or for any military organization or for any military purpose, including but not limited to projects sponsored or paid for by military organizations, or use by the U.S. Department of Defense (except for DARPA), U.S. Armed Forces, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. intelligence agencies, or any foreign counterparts of the foregoing.

reply
monegator
7 hours ago
[-]
>Adafruit acted a bit shady here

what is new here?

reply
ptorrone
5 hours ago
[-]
i wrote the article, just go ahead and call me shady and leave out other people at the company. limor will be back online next week after recovering (just had a kid) and you can call her shady too.
reply
shevy-java
4 hours ago
[-]
But you did not sign the article? I don't understand this.

IMO it would have just been easier to simply sign it. (With signing I mean mentioning who specifically wrote a blog entry; and also ideally the time as well.)

reply
ptorrone
1 hour ago
[-]
i am here now, phillip torrone, and i am holding my 7 day old doing speech to text :)

on linkedin, i think it just says "adafruit" i will learn more and see if i can go in and add it post-post..

how is that shady for ya.

reply
relaxing
1 hour ago
[-]
? All the adafruit blog posts have author and date listed.
reply
kotaKat
3 hours ago
[-]
nah, rest of the company gets the shady label too, always has, always will.

remember when y'all both started blocking people on twitter for calling out data breaches? hrm, lmao.

reply
ptorrone
1 hour ago
[-]
those were previous blocks and a couple of banned people assumed it was that, it was not, and since then we mute and document blocks with our social team. regardless, a block from what, 4 years ago, hurt someone that bad, twitter really did hurt people.
reply
snvzz
7 hours ago
[-]
Free Software's Freedom #0: Freedom of use.
reply
riazrizvi
10 hours ago
[-]
This allays my suspicions. I appreciate the response to this community’s concerns.
reply
ykonstant
2 hours ago
[-]
It does?!
reply
shevy-java
4 hours ago
[-]
But ... how?
reply
shevy-java
4 hours ago
[-]
"Let us be absolutely clear: we have been open-source long before it was fashionable"

This is a VERY bad attempt at self-promo, sorry.

Many other open source projects are much older, so "fashionable" is a very emotionally laden word. But, even aside from this: what matters is the now and future. You can not refer to a "glorious past" if the future just looks bleak and bad.

"The Qualcomm acquisition doesn’t modify how user data is handled or how we apply our open-source principles."

Everyone already sees that the Qualcomm take-over changed the project. There is no way to deny it. Now, perhaps it COULD lead to an improvement - who knows. But it can also lead to a stagnation or decline. We saw that with many other projects that suddenly became progressively starved down. Even without a corporate overlord that may happen, when users, hobbyists, devs, are no longer as interested. They may write fewer blog entries and so forth - decline happens.

"We periodically update our legal documents to reflect new features, evolving regulations, and best practices."

As does Mozilla - yet firefox keeps on dying and dwindling.

Sorry, but this just reads like a post mortem to me.

"Restrictions on reverse-engineering apply specifically to our Software-as-a-Service cloud applications"

Which open source licence typically were to include that? And, by the way - I am increasingly noticing how the "legal terms" try to provide provisions that aren't part of a licence. I noticed this some time ago with regard to RubyCentral slapping down meta-corporate rules on rubygems.org (see here https://blog.rubygems.org/2025/07/08/policies-live.html). So this is what corporations want to do. I don't see how this benefits the hobbyists or solo devs in any way, shape or form. And I don't agree that this "sets the record straight" either.

To me it reads like a corporate take-over of arduino. That's bad.

reply
arjie
10 hours ago
[-]
Seems reasonable. I have a Duemilanove and an Uno R2 that I haven't used in ages but Arduino stuff has always been open as far as I remember. I really can't bring myself to pull out the pitchforks here. They've earned the trust from me. It's been over a decade now.
reply
shevy-java
4 hours ago
[-]
Does not really make a whole lot of sense to me.

You are basically saying that "past experience means future trust". How does this relate? I mean, a company xyz can have been doing great in the past, but may go extinct lateron for any reason. See Sun and then who owns Java nowadays. I much preferred Sun over Oracle really.

reply
A4ET8a8uTh0_v2
32 minutes ago
[-]
I feel the parent. I assume what they refer to is good will accumulated over the years. But that by itself does not last forever and eventually disappears ( faster in some than others ). I personally learned to not get too comfy. Stuff changes, which means we have need to adjust as well. It is just hard sometimes.
reply
IshKebab
5 hours ago
[-]
Did you miss the bit where they got bought by Qualcomm??
reply
exasperaited
7 hours ago
[-]
“ we have been open-source long before it was fashionable.”

That is a weird, weird claim for a firm that was founded off the back of a project that started in 2005.

It’s, what, over five years after the VA Linux IPO, two years after Microsoft arguably used Caldera as a weapon in a proxy war against IBM, seven years after one of the most famous software products of all time, Netscape Navigator, went open source.

Just a strange, facially implausible bit of appeal to tradition.

reply
villgax
8 hours ago
[-]
Faceless corpo speak at best
reply
neilv
10 hours ago
[-]
They say "privacy" a lot on that blog page, but that very page runs surveillance capitalism trackers from Facebook, Twitter, Google, and others.
reply
baobun
9 hours ago
[-]
Whoa there, you're in reverse-engineering territory of their website already!
reply
rasz
9 hours ago
[-]
They mean privacy for the author of that blog post - he is anonymous after all.
reply
speedgoose
6 hours ago
[-]
> The Qualcomm acquisition doesn’t modify how user data is handled or how we apply our open-source principles.

That’s a lie. Perhaps they lie to themselves. I don’t know. I can only guess.

reply
typpilol
10 hours ago
[-]
If the only restriction on reverse engineering is their cloud SaaS, why was everyone up in arms?

Or is this Arduino trying to save face?

reply
healsdata
9 hours ago
[-]
Their definition of "the platform" in the TOS is verbose and has weird grammar. I can see how people came away with a different understanding.

> User shall not translate, decompile or reverse-engineer the Platform, or engage in any other activity designed to identify the algorithms and logic of the Platform’s operation, unless expressly allowed by Arduino or by applicable license agreements;

> The Site is part of the platform developed and managed by Arduino, which allows users to take part in the discussions on the Arduino forum, the Arduino blog, the Arduino User Group, the Arduino Discord channel, and the Arduino Project Hub, and to access the Arduino main website, subsites, Arduino Cloud, Arduino Courses, Arduino Certifications, Arduino Docs, the Arduino EDU kit sites to release works within the Contributor License Agreement program, and to further develop the Arduino open source ecosystem (collectively, the “Platform”).

reply
baobun
9 hours ago
[-]
I can only read this as the entirety of "Arduino open source ecosystem" being part of "the Platform".
reply
consp
6 hours ago
[-]
I'm pretty sure that is the point. Legal ambiguity to say whatever they can vaguely in public but in court they will make it encompass the entire world.
reply
Karliss
6 hours ago
[-]
Large companies have repeatedly demonstrated that they will pick whichever interpretation is most convenient at the time. When there are pitchforks they will claim that you are confused and misinterpreted the writing but when you get poisoned by food in their restaurant and try to sue them they will point at terms of service on their online video streaming service that your spouse agreed 5 years ago as if that's relevant (not a joke Disney tried that one). These things are supposed to be written by proffesionals, I dont think Hanlon's razor sufficiently explains it, terms of service are at least partially intentionally written as vague and unclear as possible for benefit of one side.
reply
praptak
6 hours ago
[-]
That's called motte and bailey.
reply
shevy-java
4 hours ago
[-]
u/healsdata already gave a good answer to that. I may only add that this could be the first step of increasing restrictions made by qualcom. The future will show. If it happens, some who warned about that may wisely nod their heads then, whereas others will be very confused about "this sudden change" ...
reply
unmole
9 hours ago
[-]
> why was everyone up in arms?

Engagement farming, clout chasing etc.

reply