EEVblog 1721 - RIP Arduino (New T&C Deep Dive)

[EEVblog]

Qualcomm have bought out Arduino, and several weeks later have altered the Terms & Conditions. Dave does a deep dive of the changes.

https://www.arduino.cc/en/terms-conditions/
https://web.archive.org/web/20250912221625/https://www.arduino.cc/en/terms-conditions/

00:00 - Qualcomm have acquired Arduino. I've got a bad feeling about this...
01:02 - How much did they pay for Arduino?
02:54 - They have changed the Terms And Conditions
03:54 - Arbitration Disputes
04:21 - Kids? Bugger off!
05:11 - Are they now restricting reverse engineering?
06:35 - Irrevocable! Give us everything, forever.
07:08 - Revokable! We can take away your stuff.
08:26 - No competition for you!
09:46 - Patents
10:25 - Export & Trade Compliance. No selling to naughty people.
11:10 - For Personal Use Only
11:36 - Changes to the Changes. We can shut it all down.
12:24 - We can suspend your account
12:49 - Arbitration blah blah
13:31 - LibreDuino

[HwAoRrDk]

I think the concerns about restrictions on reverse engineering are totally unwarranted. Note that these restrictions apply to "the Platform". From a quick read of the current T&Cs, it very much appears to me that the "Platform" is simply referring only to Arduino's online services, and not the Arduino framework libraries:

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”).

(Emphasis added. By the way, I hate it when T&Cs don't define their key terms upfront; the above is essentially on the second page, after the "Platform" term is already used several times. )

So, yeah, all perfectly normal - of course they don't want their websites being reverse-engineered or abused.

And again, where they talk about issuing a revocable licence to the services, they're talking about the websites and other online services, not physical Arduino products or the framework library code. I guess if they revoke your access to their online services, it could still screw you and possibly prevent you from doing stuff, but otherwise your rights to the framework code are governed by the GPL licence, which (correct me if I'm wrong) I doubt are revocable.

I think they've really done themselves a disfavour by using the term "platform" in their terms. Many people think of the Arduino "platform" as referring to the hardware and framework code, and are understandably confused when this term is being used to refer to online services.

[golden_labels]

I’m not seeing the change in ownership as predicting the fall. I’m aware Qualcomm’s intention may be instrumentally using Arduino to advance their own agenda, squeeze as much out of it as possible, and them dump the entire thing. I”d wish to assume good faith, but I realize it’s the most likely explanation. But that requires more steps than just acquisition. BCMI managed to create an illusion of adhering to a particular ethos. If under Qualcomm this narrative is successfully kept, I don’t see any immediate risk.

Term “platform” is defined in ToS. It has been defined and called this way before the transaction too. Nothing changed. The platform is what Qualcomm bought, besides the trademark &c.

If a license is revocable depends on the locality and the re-licensing nature of GPL makes effective revocation doubtful. But the section is not about code, but about anything that could be considered a copyrightable work. Images, messages etc. It’s a standard boilerplate blanket waiver used to protect the publisher from copyright-related responsibility. The change from “revocable” to “irrevocable” is an almost irrelevant change in the grand picture. It was equally abusive during previous ownership. With GPL it takes a funny twist: permissive licenses, in particular copyleft, are usually incompatible with such clauses.⁽¹⁾ Which puts platform’s owner in a very convenient position of a victim, not perperator, in case the open license is violated.

⁽¹⁾ If you ever wondered, why some people publishing works under open licenses (like Creative Commons) also put explicit signs banning use of these works on major social media platforms. This is the answer.

[ballsystemlord]

I wasted no time to post your video, @Dave , to the arduino discord.

Guess how it went?

It turns out that, according to an official arduio mod, your video is "junk" and "total spam" and, by implication, `encourages the posting of illicit content, potentially by minors.` So it was instantly deleted.

I've attached the full conversation (names and avatars edited out for privacy.)

[EEVblog]

I wasted no time to post your video, @Dave , to the arduino discord.
Guess how it went?
It turns out that, according to an official arduio mod, your video is "junk" and "total spam" and, by implication, `encourages the posting of illicit content, potentially by minors.` So it was instantly deleted.
I've attached the full conversation (names and avatars edited out for privacy.)

 

Could also be the fact that it's just me. I'm not exactly popular in certain circles, including I believe, parts of the open source hardware community.

[ag123]

The whole Arduino framework can just migrate over to CMake if need be. stm32duino have that since moons back
https://github.com/stm32duino/Arduino_Core_STM32/wiki/CMake-presentation
https://www.stm32duino.com/viewtopic.php?t=1648
And there is PlatformIO, VSCode,  Eclipse etc for IDE.

[dave j]

The Arduino perople have responded to the speculation: The Arduino Terms of Service and Privacy Policy update: setting the record straight

[golden_labels]

The Arduino perople have responded to the speculation: The Arduino Terms of Service and Privacy Policy update: setting the record straight

Earlier I wrote: “If under Qualcomm this narrative is successfully kept, I don’t see any immediate risk.” That “if” has now became much bigger.

Somebody at Andruino seriously thinks this is the way to handle the situation? A synthetic message from the PR? Does the person, who wrote this, even understand the community they talk to?

The acquisition? Questionable, but not horrible on its own. ToS changes? If we look closely, nothing worth much attention. This single blog post: firing torpedos at own ship.

[free_electron]

TL;DR

My concern is about "reverse engineering"

Let's say i want to use a PCF8574 and there is a nice arduino library for that. I'm not interested in the library itself but i dive into the code, figure out how it works (reverse engineer ...) and build my own.

Am i in trouble ?

I hope not, because almost all hardware interfacing code that the AI system regurgitate is based on Arduino libraries. Ask any AI how to talk to some kind of peripheral for which there is an arduino library and chances are you are getting something to looks uncannily like those libraries.

Since they claim ownership on contributions, what with those things like graphics libraries for TFT displays ? That's mostly Adafruit stuff.

[golden_labels]

As already hinted earlier and confirmed by Arduino, the reverse-engineering clause refers to the platform:

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

Whether you can reverse-engineer a library is covered by library’s own license. If that’s Arduino’s built-in libraries, they’re dual-licensed under GNU/GPL and GNU/LGPL, which means under current licensing terms your Freedom 1 is protected. If that’s libraries from other copyright holders, you must refer to license agreements you have with them.

[madires]

The Arduino perople have responded to the speculation: The Arduino Terms of Service and Privacy Policy update: setting the record straight

They omitted the important issues, just commenting on a few obvious things. Looks like Dave is absolutely right, i.e. Arduino is done. I think they will keep pretending that nothing has changed and will die slowly.

[free_electron]

Whether you can reverse-engineer a library is covered by library’s own license. If that’s Arduino’s built-in libraries, they’re dual-licensed under GNU/GPL and GNU/LGPL, which means under current licensing terms your Freedom 1 is protected. If that’s libraries from other copyright holders, you must refer to license agreements you have with them.

So it's still a licensing maze. Glad i don't use any of that stuff.

Anything i release is under the "unlicense". It's free, you can rip it off , you don't need to attribute or contribute with one understanding : as-is.

[jonovid]

  I use easy to program Arduino in a project whenever the use of a microcontroller is unavoidable 
when individual TTL switching transistor logic is just too complicated.
  looks like corporate enshittification has finally arrived to consume Arduino.

[jpanhalt]

I read Adafruit's take on it today (days later). Her first post saw a beacon of light. The second seems less optimistic:

https://blog.adafruit.com/2025/11/21/did-qualcomm-kill-arduino-for-good/
https://blog.adafruit.com/2025/11/21/the-enshittification-of-arduino-begins-qualcomm-starts-clamping-down-itsfoss2/

[free_electron]

All your code are belong to us....

next steps :
- remove the downloadable environment and go cloud compiler only. so everything falls under the umbrella
- This also eliminates other compilers for non-arduino boards to use the ecosystem and libraries
- kick out the atmel/microchip and swap with qualcomm parts
- rake in the money from the remaining 2 users.

[madires]

You missed one:
- suing free_electron for leaking their business plan

Anyhow, I wouldn't be surprised if Qualcomm follows the enshitification path you've outlined.

[jpanhalt]

Sorry, I don't see how Qualcomm can claim all the code written for Arduino belongs to it.  I have the copyright to every bit of code I have written.

[madires]

Of course you have the copyright. But if Qualcomm's T&C note that you give them the irrevocable right to do whatever they want with your code when uploading to their platform, and that clause isn't illegal in the corresponding jurisdictions, then this is exactly what happens when you upload your code to their platform. You'll give them a license for free.

[jpanhalt]

I've written nothing for Arduino and didn't realize uploading on its site involved that T&C; although, it seems reasonable.  Nevertheless, that transfers free use, but not exclusivity.  Entities such as Adafruit that seem joined at the hip to Arduino can still distribute, unless there is some other agreement they made to include links to Arduino code in its products. 

As just one example, I'm playing with USB as an HID host based on the MAX3421E chip.  The code Adafruit links to is written by Circuits at Home (2011) and is all on GitHub with a GPL2 license.  I don't see how Qualcomm can stop that.

[golden_labels]

No need to single out Qualcomm on that. As I noted earlier, the same blanket waiver was present when Arduino was owned by BCMI. It’s not Qualcomm that introduced it. Their influence is limited to replacing a word, which in the context of this entire clause is almost a cosmetic change. It feels like their lawyers went through the document and thought somebody typoed “irrevocable” as “revocable”.