NerO - Schematics & Key Features

[FTDI Chip]

For those of you who are interested in hardware design, you can now get NerO schematics - you are free to re-use any of these in your own futures designs. For more details go to: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1218034479/nero-an-energy-efficient-arduino-uno-compatible-de/posts/1440166

[mcinque]

Are you really representing FTDI? And did you really understand what users, here on this forum, thinks about your company and your amazing anti-fake strategy? 

[donotdespisethesnake]

Under your FAQ you've got:

I'd like to manufacture NerO for myself - what's the rules here?
...
4. Stick with the original design - don't cheapen it by removing the 5V level converters or substituting something else in place of our X-series USB UART.

If that really is a rule, restricting how people may modify the design is incompatible with Open Source Hardware. I would drop that.

Overall, the switching regulator is a good idea, it is a well known weakness of the original Arduinos. Would be nice if Arduino fixed that themselves.

Otherwise it seems like a cynical attempt to build rep and get FTDI devices into the "maker market". OSHW doesn't work like that. The first thing people will do is swap the FTDI chip for something with a better reputation, if they pay any attention to the design at all that is. Not a lot of the target audience will be using Altium!

[mcinque]

it seems like a cynical attempt to build rep

instead of "cynical", I would have used "pathetic". It fits better IMO.

[timofonic]

SPAM

BAN

DELETE

F"·$· Terminator Death Ics

EEvBLOG needs 800x more moderators. Let's make the Moderatoriser...


If they want publicity, pay for it. This isn't true Libre Hardware.


You clone Arduino. To make justice, they should explode in the CEOs faces

[Simon]

SPAM

BAN

DELETE

F"·$· Terminator Death Ics

EEvBLOG needs 800x more moderators. Let's make the Moderatoriser...


If they want publicity, pay for it. This isn't true Libre Hardware.


You clone Arduino. To make justice, they should explode in the CEOs faces

Why deny people the oportunity to tell them where to go ? i personally won't use FTDI stuff for two reasons: 1 the way they handled the alst fiasco and what they did in the first place, 2 they are scottish which probably led to the first point!

[Karel]

Are you really representing FTDI? And did you really understand what users, here on this forum, thinks about your company and your amazing anti-fake strategy? 

I think you should speak for yourself. I have no problems with FTDI.
If you get into problems because you bought fake chips, then you probably have learned a lesson. Don't buy fake chips.
If your supplier told you that the fake chips were genuine, then you are fucked by your supplier. Don't blame FTDI.

[wblock]

It would have been fine for the FTDI driver to refuse to work with clones.  When the driver reprograms clones so they no longer work at all, that is is a property and security issue.  Also a vendor judgement issue.

Easier to just avoid FTDI than take the risk of getting clones.  As they say, "the problem is solved on our end."

[Karel]

It would have been fine for the FTDI driver to refuse to work with clones.  When the driver reprograms clones so they no longer work at all, that is is a property and security issue.  Also a vendor judgement issue.

It's an issue for the supplier.

Easier to just avoid FTDI than take the risk of getting clones.  As they say, "the problem is solved on our end."

It's easier not to buy fake chips.

[timofonic]

Quote from: Karel on Today at 05:58:12 AM>Quote from: wblock on Today at 05:06:34 AM

It would have been fine for the FTDI driver to refuse to work with clones.  When the driver reprograms clones so they no longer work at all, that is is a property and security issue.  Also a vendor judgement issue.

It's an issue for the supplier.
Quote from: wblock on Today at 05:06:34 AM

Easier to just avoid FTDI than take the risk of getting clones.  As they say, "the problem is solved on our end."

It's easier not to buy fake chips.



It's easier to not buy products with FTDI chips, there are counterfeits EVERYWHERE. You may get a nice *surprise* after buying some device

TO MODERATORS: This isn't Open Hardware. The manufacturers promised to release the project done in Altiuum a month after the product is sold. This only belongs to crowdfunded projects, it's considered SPAM.

[EEVblog]

EEvBLOG needs 800x more moderators. Let's make the Moderatoriser...
If they want publicity, pay for it. This isn't true Libre Hardware.

If FTDI want to post their OSHW project in the OSHW section then they are welcome to, provided they stick around and contribute to the discussion.
If you don't like their project or have a problem with it, then say so, that's a what a forum is for. Asking for them to be banned just because of your opinion of them, is wrong.

[Simon]

Are you really representing FTDI? And did you really understand what users, here on this forum, thinks about your company and your amazing anti-fake strategy? 

I think you should speak for yourself. I have no problems with FTDI.
If you get into problems because you bought fake chips, then you probably have learned a lesson. Don't buy fake chips.
If your supplier told you that the fake chips were genuine, then you are fucked by your supplier. Don't blame FTDI.

FTDI make (or design) a very non consequential chip. No product spec will tell you if an FTDI chip was used, it might tell you what the main processor is. Punishing an end user that bought a product with a fake chip in it that was specifically ordered from a supplier many levels up the chain is wreckless, stupid, ignorant and typical of a company that does not give a fuck! if the problem can become evident in manufacturing that is one thing. but to destroy products in the field is bad form. I will never have any respect for this company.

[Karel]

Punishing an end user that bought a product with a fake chip in it ...

The enduser is punished by either the person that decided to use a fake chip in the end product or by
the person that decided to sell fake chips to manufacturers.

[Simon]

Punishing an end user that bought a product with a fake chip in it ...

The enduser is punished by either the person that decided to use a fake chip in the end product or by
the person that decided to sell fake chips to manufacturers.

but someone buying the product has no idea and never made the choice to use a fake chip! refusing to work with the fake is fine, but to damage it is not.

[Karel]

but someone buying the product has no idea and never made the choice to use a fake chip!

Endusers usually have warranty. They can return their product and get a working one. Damages are for the company that
decided to go with fake chips.

[Simon]

but someone buying the product has no idea and never made the choice to use a fake chip!

Endusers usually have warranty. They can return their product and get a working one. Damages are for the company that
decided to go with fake chips.

if the end user still has documentation of the product being purchased and if it's still within warranty. The company selling the product may not have made it, the company they buy it from may not have, the actual manufacturer bought the chips from a wholesaler, the wholesaler may have had to deal with other suppliers. Yet you want to punish the one person that got proper screwed and who has no redress and has no idea what happened and knowing how hard claiming his money back will just dump the prodict and buy another one that may have a fake and so just give more money to the fakers and never punish them. Your a smart cookie you are.

[timb]

but someone buying the product has no idea and never made the choice to use a fake chip!

Endusers usually have warranty. They can return their product and get a working one. Damages are for the company that
decided to go with fake chips.

You're not going to win this fight so don't even try. You're just expending energy you could be using to jerk off to FTDI datasheets (or whatever else you do for fun).

Why aren't you going to win? Glad you asked! Two reasons:

1) You're wrong. Fun Fact: Even reputable supplies such as DigiKey have been duped by fake chips before! On top of that, prior to FTDIgate, they provided no way (short of ordering directly from through them) to verify if a chip was legit or not.

Aside from that, punishing end users of a product that the fake chip went into is bad form. Affected devices could have been 5+ years old, well out of any warranty or return period. (Remember that the designer of the product may not have even known the chips were fake.)

Keep in mind the fact they pushed this driver to Windows Update, which auto-installed on many systems, essentially bricking the devices (at least, as far as Joe Blow is concerned).

2) The anti-FTDI army is massive and will wear you down by sheer attrition.

[Karel]

The company selling the product may not have made it, the company they buy it from may not have, the actual manufacturer bought the chips from a wholesaler, the wholesaler may have had to deal with other suppliers.

That's not the problem of the enduser. The seller is obliged to take back the product and fix it. How they do that is their problem.
That's how warranty works.

[Simon]

The company selling the product may not have made it, the company they buy it from may not have, the actual manufacturer bought the chips from a wholesaler, the wholesaler may have had to deal with other suppliers.

That's not the problem of the enduser. The seller is obliged to take back the product and fix it. How they do that is their problem.
That's how warranty works.

thats not how warranty works. Who is responsible, FTDI for willfully destroying it (criminal action), microsoft for aiding and abetting the crime or the seller who did nothing wrong ? you still don't grasp that products usually are expected to last beyond the warranty period but then I bet that your idea of making a living is by screwing people selling them items that are designed to last just after the warranty period.

[Karel]

Even reputable supplies such as DigiKey have been duped by fake chips before!

So, blame them, not FTDI. Legally, if Digikey sells fake chips while saying they are genuine, they are responsible.
Same story. Either they know and they are responsible, or they didn't and they can forward the damages to their supplier.

(Remember that the designer of the product may not have even known the chips were fake.)

Same story. Either they know and they are responsible, or they didn't and they can forward the damages to their supplier.

[Karel]

thats not how warranty works.

Yes, it is.

[timb]

What FTDI did was legal. That doesn't mean it was the correct thing to do, ethically speaking. That's what you're failing to grasp here.

No one had a problem with them designing the driver to not work with counterfeit chips. We have a problem with them reprogramming said chips, effectively bricking them.

If they aren't FTDI chips, what business does FTDI have reprogramming their EEPROM? Answer me that smart guy.

[Simon]

Even reputable supplies such as DigiKey have been duped by fake chips before!

So, blame them, not FTDI. Legally, if Digikey sells fake chips while saying they are genuine, they are responsible.
Same story. Either they know and they are responsible, or they didn't and they can forward the damages to their supplier.

Oh so now it's someone elses fault after all and not the inoccent end user that does not even know what an FTDI chip is. and of course the end user knows where the parts were bought from and who assembled the product when it's out of warranty.

[Ian.M]

Lets *NOT* rehash the whole #FTDIgate mess.
All the arguments have already been presented in https://www.eevblog.com/forum/reviews/ftdi-driver-kills-fake-ftdi-ft232/
If you wish to continue that thread, that's up to you, but its severely off-topic other than as a mention when dissing the NerO project.

[SL4P]

The term that no-one has raised, and the suppliers do not appear to have taken into account in their purchase contracts is...

CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES that may be caused by an untested, non-original or defective part which has been supplied knowingly or otherwise against an order.

Your supplier may charge more to cover his insurance, or just not sell to you under those terms.
He may have back-to-back terms with his upstream suppliers etc.

If they do, and your product goes belly-up, then the right lawyer will have the supplier's insurer cover sll costs of recall, repair and replacement.

The same rules apply to YOUR customers - if they require cover for consequential damages you have the same options.

It's all a bit nasty, and keeps lawyers fed - but this is one factor that makes mil-spec equipment so expensive

[Simon]

The problm is an average joe knowing all of this and enough average joes kicking up a stink for the common manufacturer of one of the many products using te chips to have any lawsuit or vague consideration take place.

[Karel]

We have a problem with them reprogramming said chips, effectively bricking them.

I don't.

[Karel]

Oh so now it's someone elses fault after all and not the inoccent end user that does not even know what an FTDI chip is. and of course the end user knows where the parts were bought from and who assembled the product when it's out of warranty.

No. The procedure is as follows:

1) The enduser claims damages to the person/shop/company where they bought the device.

2) Then, that person/shop/company replaces/fix/pay damages/whatever to compensate the enduser.

3) Then, that person/shop/company claims damages to their supplier where they bought the fake chips.

4) This repeats till reached at the culprit.

[zapta]

No. The procedure is as follows:

1) The enduser claims damages to the person/shop/company where they bought the device.

2) Then, that person/shop/company replaces/fix/pay damages/whatever to compensate the enduser.

3) Then, that person/shop/company claims damages to their supplier where they bought the fake chips.

4) This repeats till reached at the culprit.

Here is an easier procedure:

1. Avoid FTDI chips.

[Simon]

Oh so now it's someone elses fault after all and not the inoccent end user that does not even know what an FTDI chip is. and of course the end user knows where the parts were bought from and who assembled the product when it's out of warranty.

No. The procedure is as follows:

1) The enduser claims damages to the person/shop/company where they bought the device.

2) Then, that person/shop/company replaces/fix/pay damages/whatever to compensate the enduser.

3) Then, that person/shop/company claims damages to their supplier where they bought the fake chips.

4) This repeats till reached at the culprit.

As you have not shown you country I don't know what legal system you are refering to. My limited experience of the UK legal system is that while most people think they have rights and protection there is actually very little in place and it certainly does not extend beyond warranty period. Of course if you have dealt with a foreign company or seller has shut up shop you have 0 comeback at the outset.

[Karel]

Of course if you have dealt with a foreign company or seller has shut up shop you have 0 comeback at the outset.

That's normal risc for doing business. Either pay more and buy from stable and reliable companies where you can claim damages
or pay less and buy from obscure companies and take the risc that you have to pay damages if things go wrong.

[Simon]

Of course if you have dealt with a foreign company or seller has shut up shop you have 0 comeback at the outset.

That's normal risc for doing business. Either pay more and buy from stable and reliable companies where you can claim damages
or pay less and buy from obscure companies and take the risc that you have to pay damages if things go wrong.

that is no protection really in the UK, if a seller does not coperate you have to take them to court, hardly worth it. and as for paying more you can find yourself paying much much more for something that is worse than buyinh direct from china.

[SL4P]

No. The procedure is as follows:
1) The enduser claims damages to the person/shop/company where they bought the device.
2) Then, that person/shop/company replaces/fix/pay damages/whatever to compensate the enduser.
3) Then, that person/shop/company claims damages to their supplier where they bought the fake chips.
4) This repeats till reached at the culprit.

Here is an easier procedure:
1. Avoid FTDI chips.

OK, so what happens when Intel release a processor that has a floating point math error ?   
How will not buying FTDI help in that case?

The solution is being aware of your options and responsibilities to your customers.
How you invoke those responsibilities is entirely up to you.

[zapta]

OK, so what happens when Intel release a processor that has a floating point math error ?   

In this case, the product will be faulty from day one.

The problem with the FTDI case is that they regressed working product in the field. Not very wise.

[Simon]

OK, so what happens when Intel release a processor that has a floating point math error ?   

In this case, the product will be faulty from day one.

The problem with the FTDI case is that they regressed working product in the field. Not very wise.

And what was worse was that their response amounted to "fuck you", and because they had not damaged a large enough entity to sue them they got off scott free and microsoft removed their drivers from the automatic update making life harder for the end users of FTDI products.

[mcinque]

No. The procedure is as follows:
1) The enduser claims damages to the person/shop/company where they bought the device.
2) Then, that person/shop/company replaces/fix/pay damages/whatever to compensate the enduser.
3) Then, that person/shop/company claims damages to their supplier where they bought the fake chips.
4) This repeats till reached at the culprit.

Don't you ever considered that the end user does NOT deserve to go thru "the procedure" just because FTDI has a counterfeit issue?

FTDI anti-fake strategy was absolutely disgusting because they took the easiest and stupid way to act against fakes, punishing unconscious end users.

And think that if the product isn't still in warranty, it is fucked. And IT'S-NOT-AN-END-USER-FAULT!

And when they realized that this was a terrible idea, they have done a step back on their decision, so basically they have damaged the end-users only.

My opinion is that hitting the end users for their problems is more or less like hit a child: is an asshole's behavior that doesn't deserve a crumb of respect.

OK, so what happens when Intel release a processor that has a floating point math error ?   

Well, for me that's a compliance issue, that in most cases is not intentional and doesn't let you with a dead device. Intel can (and must) effectively replace defective devices.

[Simon]

My opinion is that hitting the end users for their problems is more or less like hit a child: is an asshole's behavior that doesn't deserve a crumb of respect.

My experience of scottish people (FTDI is a scottish company) is that they are a bit like that and assume they are always the injured party. I was most dissapoint when not enough of them had illusions of grandure when they opted not to leave us. It would have provided years of entertainment from people that make their own bad luck and then blame someone else! FTDI's response was totally in character!

[donotdespisethesnake]

Oh so now it's someone elses fault after all and not the inoccent end user that does not even know what an FTDI chip is. and of course the end user knows where the parts were bought from and who assembled the product when it's out of warranty.

No. The procedure is as follows:

1) The enduser claims damages to the person/shop/company where they bought the device.

2) Then, that person/shop/company replaces/fix/pay damages/whatever to compensate the enduser.

3) Then, that person/shop/company claims damages to their supplier where they bought the fake chips.

4) This repeats till reached at the culprit.

You must either be a troll or a lawyer, maybe both!

[Simon]

Oh so now it's someone elses fault after all and not the inoccent end user that does not even know what an FTDI chip is. and of course the end user knows where the parts were bought from and who assembled the product when it's out of warranty.

No. The procedure is as follows:

1) The enduser claims damages to the person/shop/company where they bought the device.

2) Then, that person/shop/company replaces/fix/pay damages/whatever to compensate the enduser.

3) Then, that person/shop/company claims damages to their supplier where they bought the fake chips.

4) This repeats till reached at the culprit.

You must either be a troll or a lawyer, maybe both!

No I think he is just a fanboy so will never see reason. He has probably never tried to sort out a consumer issue.

Here in the UK no one helps you. You can complain to the company who can ignore you. Then you can contact "consumer direct" who are a helpline run by a charity and underfunded by the government as they are never available to take calls and I always have to leave my details for a call back that comes days later. They have replaced what used to be trading standards who have been peared to the bone and only deal with big issues and deal directly with businesses they can physically get their hands on. Consumer direct can only offer advice to help you contact the company again using the right language to make them understand you know your rights. If you still get nowhere it is probably court assuming the offender is still in business. Beleive me i have tried to deal with matters before and got nowhere even though laws had been broken, nobody was interested, it would cost me a fortune in court fees to see the offenders held accountable. The best we could do was get them to sort of rectify the cock up they had made or rather that their now vanished subcontractor had made.

[HackedFridgeMagnet]

My experience of scottish people (FTDI is a scottish company) is that they are a bit like that and assume they are always the injured party. I was most dissapoint when not enough of them had illusions of grandure when they opted not to leave us. It would have provided years of entertainment from people that make their own bad luck and then blame someone else! FTDI's response was totally in character!

Off topic and racist, better report it to the moderator.

oops..

[Simon]

I'm just stating my opinion based on experience, I'm entited to that. As for "racism" they are the same race as me and given my surname I probably am of scottish decent.

[HackedFridgeMagnet]

Ok I'll take your word for it. 
Hopefully we could also now keep this thread on topic, now that people have vented their views of FTDI.

[Simon]

Well the last word on the subject was that what was being given out as open source or whatever was not actually open source. Any advance on that ?

[Macbeth]

Is everyone missing the obvious point that FTDI deliberately caused malicious damage? I mean imagine Microsoft, when detecting an end user running an illegitimate copy of Windows goes and formats the users hard disk in retaliation? I can't see the difference. Pretty much any bona fide software developer, even of low end shareware or stuff like that would not dream of doing something so malicious.

Karel would no doubt be happy that JoeShmoe Ltd (1 man band, assets of < £1k) who supplied a minor piece of software detected a legitimate pirate or else a false positive and his HDD's get formated and then all the BIOS chips on all peripherals were also zapped just because. Hell, why not trigger the original Commodore PET POKE of DEATH

Karel would be happy with all his losses because he has the right to sue JoeShmoe Ltd in the courts...

[Simon]

This is different, you have mentioned examples of software that "self destruct" FTDI's problem was with their driver being used without permission, so all they had to do was stop the "pirated" software from working, not destroy an unrelated product.

[Macbeth]

This is different, you have mentioned examples of software that "self destruct" FTDI's problem was with their driver being used without permission, so all they had to do was stop the "pirated" software from working, not destroy an unrelated product.

Precisely - if the "cloned" FTDI chips were actual xerox copies, then they would have got away (and are still getting away to this day) with masquerading as the originals.

The FTDI "compatible" chips that are bricked are totally independant hardware wise. Original designs. They just present themselves to Windows as equivalent to FTDI by VID:PID and happen to mostly be compatible with the original driver. The new drivers deliberately do what they can to destroy these chips, so much so that using a device quite happily in Linux or MacOS one day you plug it into a Windows PC and it fucks it up and you can't use it anymore on any of your other computers.

Fine, if FTDI want to stop other manufacturers from using their drivers then go ahead and block them. What they did was insane. FTDI have lost all respect forevermore.

So yeah, NerO - I won't even bother looking up what it is. I can't be arsed with anything associated with FTDI.

[Simon]

Well they have basically done their own version of an UNO board to get back in with us.

[timb]

Well the last word on the subject was that what was being given out as open source or whatever was not actually open source. Any advance on that ?

It looks like FTDI are giving out the NerO schematics and PCB files under the Open Hardware banner to allow anyone to modify and produce their own versions. However, they place a restriction in their terms stating you *cannot* replace the FTDI chip with anything else. Fair enough, right?

Wrong. The problem is that the Open Hardware license says you can't put those types of restrictions on something. Oops!

[Simon]

Well the last word on the subject was that what was being given out as open source or whatever was not actually open source. Any advance on that ?

It looks like FTDI are giving out the NerO schematics and PCB files under the Open Hardware banner to allow anyone to modify and produce their own versions. However, they place a restriction in their terms stating you *cannot* replace the FTDI chip with anything else. Fair enough, right?

Wrong. The problem is that the Open Hardware license says you can't put those types of restrictions on something. Oops!

So basically they are at it again, trying to make their own rules. And I can't help but point out a situation that mirrors recent political events in that region of the UK.

[AlxDroidDev]

I like their design... I might just order a CH340 chip to build my own NerO!

I think I'll make my own KickStarter with a nero-clone featuring your choice of:
- CH340
- PL2303
- CP2102
- TUSB3410
- Atmega16U4

Suck on that, FTDI!

[EEVblog]

Well the last word on the subject was that what was being given out as open source or whatever was not actually open source. Any advance on that ?

It looks like FTDI are giving out the NerO schematics and PCB files under the Open Hardware banner to allow anyone to modify and produce their own versions. However, they place a restriction in their terms stating you *cannot* replace the FTDI chip with anything else. Fair enough, right?
Wrong. The problem is that the Open Hardware license says you can't put those types of restrictions on something. Oops!

Got a link to this?

[donotdespisethesnake]

Well the last word on the subject was that what was being given out as open source or whatever was not actually open source. Any advance on that ?

It looks like FTDI are giving out the NerO schematics and PCB files under the Open Hardware banner to allow anyone to modify and produce their own versions. However, they place a restriction in their terms stating you *cannot* replace the FTDI chip with anything else. Fair enough, right?
Wrong. The problem is that the Open Hardware license says you can't put those types of restrictions on something. Oops!

Got a link to this?

Freedom to modify is one of the fundamental four freedoms : http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html

http://www.oshwa.org/definition/

4. Derived Works
The license shall allow modifications and derived works, and shall allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original work. The license shall allow for the manufacture, sale, distribution, and use of products created from the design files, the design files themselves, and derivatives thereof.

Similar terminology is used in all Open Source definitions or licenses.

However, in the NerO Kickstarter page https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1218034479/nero-an-energy-efficient-arduino-uno-compatible-de/description in the FAQ they have

I'd like to manufacture NerO for myself - what's the rules here?

Sure, can do. We'll post the schematic and pcb design files ( we use Altium ) 1 month after the project ends. If you are a backer we will give you a link to download these earlier. Now, here are the don'ts -
1. Don't use FTDI or it's trademarks on your PCB artwork.You can use NerO though.
2. Be honest about the country of manufacture - if it's made in China, well say so..
3. Don't claim FCC ,CE and ROHS certification unless you have done it independently by yourself. Our certificates are only valid for our own manufactured product where we guarantee our component sources.
4. Stick with the original design - don't cheapen it by removing the 5V level converters or substituting something else in place of our X-series USB UART.

1,2 and 3 are basically OK, although it is up to the licensee to use the design in a legal manner, so 2 & 3 are superfluous.

4 is clearly a "no derivatives" rule, which is against Open Source.

[Karel]

4 is clearly a "no derivatives" rule, which is against Open Source.

I'm not a laywer but I think a license has precedence over a faq.

[Simon]

They also don't want to give much away, I don't know if they provide gerbers but if they do I can't see why is will not pass FCC etc. I dn't know what other rule there are though. If it's made in china be honest ? sounds like they hold a huge grudge. Infact the whole thing looks like an attempt to boost the same of their products.

[AlxDroidDev]

the whole thing looks like an attempt to boost the same of their products.

I think you nailed this kickstarter's raison d'être

[donotdespisethesnake]

4 is clearly a "no derivatives" rule, which is against Open Source.

I'm not a laywer but I think a license has precedence over a faq.

Ah, such naivete! I would strongly advise that you consult a lawyer before entering any agreements.

Note : a copyright license is binding on the licensee, but not the licensor. Provided that the licensor reserves rights, they can also withdraw permission to use.

Even if we assume that the stated license has precedence over other, possibly informally stated provisions, if the licensor thinks you have not followed his rules he can still sue you. You will have to turn up in court and mount a defense, even if the defense is "the additional license terms are not binding". You have to spend time and money, even if you win, and there is a risk you don't.

In case of "crayon licenses" where a standard license is used with other clauses tacked on, if they conflict with the main license then there is considerable legal uncertainty. The safest approach is to assume the most restrictive interpretation.

Sadly, the track record of FTDI screwing up what should be quite simple is not good. Possibly the FAQ is totally bogus, but then why did FTDI put it in? They must have thought it was a good idea. I wouldn't like to trust that if you create a clone not to their satisfaction, you wouldn't get a "cease and desist" letter from corporate legal.

[Ian.M]

So do a fork of the original open hardware Arduino design before FTDI mucked with it, to include a switching regulator and a clean-room implementation of any other features that are desirable from the NerO and call it the NemO. 

[donotdespisethesnake]

So do a fork of the original open hardware Arduino design before FTDI mucked with it, to include a switching regulator and a clean-room implementation of any other features that are desirable from the NerO and call it the NemO. 

That is the crazy thing, the whole point of Open Source is freedom to create variations, companies can't lock down designs. FTDI don't seem to get that.

NerO is clearly a derivative of Arduino Uno, and if FTDI were genuinely interested in Open Source they would realise that in the sprit of FOSS they should use the same license terms for any derivatives. But apart from posting to advertise their products, I guess Fred from FTDI is not in the habit of reading here.

As for forking Arduino, I don't use them much.

[Simon]

FTDI want to get their products out there and see themselves as the injured party over the fakes and seem to think because they are the injured party can do as they please which is why they criminally damaged peoples property and now think they can make more new rules in their favour while pretending to use existing rules to publicise their product. The statement about being honest if the chips are chinese/fake says it all. If i were to make one i would have no idea where the chips came from unless i actually bought them off someone in china.

Keep it up FTDI, you are so pathetic its comic.

[parasole]

Interesting and hot topic... I am not defending ftdi and whenever possible trying to buy cheaper products as probably most of us over here  however, I would not blame them that tough, they just did try to protect their IP, admit not very inspired and creative, that is. You should admit that they are victims of their good work, unfortunately for them their chip become so popular that at some point instead of counteracting clones, they will have to release it to public domain as common human asset...

And guys, are you blaming that your Saleae cloned copy doesn't work? Yep, they used a chip which is the same as clones use   
Don't blame any one for cloning of your product, just because at some point it will become popular...Or you will try to protect some how your IP? Interesting in which way...

I have many "ftdi" based units, have no idea which one is original and which is not, and of course it would be tough time to have them out of work. I hope it will not happen, just because ftti guys are Scottish as some one pointed about, and I believe that after quick and uninspired action as you may expect from highlanders  , they will sat down and will take a balanced decision which will affect pirates but not us, end users... I don't see the point to attack them unnecessary, after all they are creators, not pirates...

Sorry guys, possible my first post on this forum should not happen in this thread....

[AlxDroidDev]

And guys, are you blaming that your Saleae cloned copy doesn't work? Yep, they used a chip which is the same as clones use   

Your argument is invalid.

All Saleae clones work. Maybe not with the original Saleae software (although some do), but with certainly work sigrok. Besides, trying to run them the Saleae software will not render them useless for anything else.

So, it's not the same thing. Your argument is still invalid and FTDI still sucks.

[parasole]

And guys, are you blaming that your Saleae cloned copy doesn't work? Yep, they used a chip which is the same as clones use   

Your argument is invalid.

I assume if it would be possible to brick the clones, possible Saleae would do it, however their initial design decision was brilliant from tech point of view, but not from the side they would be able to protect their IP, it is simple not possible since the clones HW is absolutely the same as original...
So, my argument is valid, and yes, I use one of that clone as you do :-) 
I am not going to argue with any one, it was just my particular opinion...

[CatalinaWOW]

I am curious.  Does this Nem0 operate with the Arduino operating system?  Would FTDI be responsive to the next release of Arduino (1.6.7 perhaps) bricking Nem0 systems?  I know the situation is different since one (the FTDI USB interface) is proprietary and the other open source, but it does seem a bit of the pot calling the kettle black here.  An anti-cloner cloning someone elses work.

[FrankBuss]

However, in the NerO Kickstarter page https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1218034479/nero-an-energy-efficient-arduino-uno-compatible-de/description in the FAQ they have

I would say the FAQ is an advice. You can follow it or ignore it.

Looks like a good idea to use a switched voltage regulator for 5V. First I wondered how this would work out for the analog inputs, because of the 200mV ripple on the 5V line, which they stated in the Kickstarter project (most Arduino projects don't configure the ADC for the internal bandgap reference). But they thought about it and AVCC has a LC filter, which maybe reduces it to even lower ripple than with an original Arduino Uno, where it is just connected to 5V, getting all the noise from the CPU and shields without filtering. I don't like FTDI because of their questionable anti-clone strategies, but this project is nice.

[mcinque]

assume if it would be possible to brick the clones, possible Saleae would do it

nope. Saleae said clearly that they don't want to act against the clones.
FTDI sucks.

[donotdespisethesnake]

However, in the NerO Kickstarter page https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1218034479/nero-an-energy-efficient-arduino-uno-compatible-de/description in the FAQ they have

I would say the FAQ is an advice. You can follow it or ignore it.

Sure, but it contradicts the OSHW license. Copyright doesn't cover hardware, so in that sense the OSHW license is also "advisory". So basically they are saying:

1. "Please feel free to modify this design however you like."
2. "Please do not modify the design in certain ways"

It's very confusing, and clearly FTDI don't understand Open Source.

I'm quite tempted to clone their design and just replace the FTDI chip, but I don't bother much with Arduinos nowadays.

[donotdespisethesnake]

I am curious.  Does this Nem0 operate with the Arduino operating system?  Would FTDI be responsive to the next release of Arduino (1.6.7 perhaps) bricking Nem0 systems?  I know the situation is different since one (the FTDI USB interface) is proprietary and the other open source, but it does seem a bit of the pot calling the kettle black here.  An anti-cloner cloning someone elses work.

Arduino has always worked fine with clones, except one point where they detected Arduino's made by the breakaway Arduino.org, but they quickly reverted that behaviour. There is no reason why Arduino IDE would not with with Ner0.

"Cloning" - either exactly copying or creating a derivative - an Open Source design is fine, it is what the author has explicitly allowed. Just don't use the author's trademarks without permission.