Arudino compatible boards are not clones. Can we stop calling them clones?

Community Bar Sport
1

I'm still pretty new to Arduino but I find it really annoying that people call compatible boards "clones". They are NOT clones!

Calling an Arduino compatible board a clone is wrong to me and takes away from the whole Arduino community, as one of the major advantages to Arduino is the ability to program your own ATMega chips. It really bugs me that everyone uses the term "clone" to refer to doing this. This terminology wrong. But even the compatible board manufacturers call their own boards "clones". But they are not clones.

Cloning is taking an original and creating a copy of it. The chip is typically what gets clones. But no one is cloning the ATMega chips. When I create an Arduino board, I purchase a real ATMega chip and install the Arduino bootloader. Nothing cloned there. I then program it using the Arduino IDE. Nothing cloned there either. So what is being cloned? I am using an ATMega chip, I am using the Arduino bootloader and I am using the AVR compiler to write my own code to the chip.

This is exactly what the Arduino licensed manufacturer does as well. Are they cloning their own designs? I don't think so.This is the same thing that all the Arduino compatible board manufactures do.

However, there are some manufacturers that then print a fake Arduino logo and trademark on their boards. Those are not techincally clones either, they are fakes! And if they are not illegal, they should be.

If you read the article about Arduino fakes on this website, it basically puts clones and fakes in the same category, but at least they are using the term clone correctly, in that it is a fake and illegal product that violates their trademark. But compatible boards are something else entirely.

Curious if anyone else agrees with me and gets annoyed by this? This is the reason so many people are confused about Arduino compatible boards being illegal. You cannot pull up an Arduino board on Amazon without finding a dozen questions about clones and if they are illegal. If we'd stop using the word to describe compatible boards, I think it would really help cut down on confusion.

I really like a few of the compatible boards and they are my go to board for some niche projects. I hate the idea that their products are being labeled as if they are illegal.

2

Put your efforts into learning the platform ;).

3

jrothlander:
I find it really annoying that people call compatible boards "clones". They are NOT clones!

I do agree that there is some misuse of the term "clone". For example, the Uno, Nano, and Mega derivative boards that use a CH340 in place of the ATmega16U2 or FTDI FT232RL are no clones. These are derivatives because they don't exactly follow the hardware design of the original Uno/Nano/Mega.

jrothlander:
one of the major advantages to Arduino is the ability to program your own ATMega chips. It really bugs me that everyone uses the term "clone" to refer to doing this.

That's not what clone means. I haven't seen the term used in that context so I disagree with you saying "everyone uses".

jrothlander:
So what is being cloned?

The hardware design. Most of the Arduino boards are open source hardware. Arduino publishes the design files and anyone can send those files to a PCB manufacturer, then assemble the board with the same components used on the official board. That's the very definition of a clone.

jrothlander:
Cloning is taking an original and creating a copy of it.

Correct.

jrothlander:
This is exactly what the Arduino licensed manufacturer does as well.

Clone manufacturers are not licensed. The only time you would need a license is if you were using Arduino's trademarks on the board. If you did that, then it wouldn't be a clone, it would be an official Arduino board.

jrothlander:
However, there are some manufacturers that then print a fake Arduino logo and trademark on their boards. Those are not techincally clones either, they are fakes!

I would refer to these as "counterfeits", not clones. It's an important distinction to make because Arduino is fine with people making clones, but they are not fine with trademark infringement. In the open source world where so much is given freely, I think it's important for people to be respectful of the restrictions that do exist.

jrothlander:
And if they are not illegal, they should be.

Every jurisdiction has its own laws, so I couldn't say if it's illegal everywhere, but surely in most of the world this is illegal.

jrothlander:
If you read the article about Arduino fakes on this website, it basically puts clones and fakes in the same category

Do you mean this page:
https://www.arduino.cc/en/Products/Counterfeit
That page uses the term "clone" in error. The first two instances definitely need to be changed to say "counterfeit".

This article, written by the founder of Arduino, explains things correctly.

more information here:
https://www.arduino.cc/en/Main/FAQ#toc8

jrothlander:
at least they are using the term clone correctly, in that it is a fake and illegal product that violates their trademark.

Wrong. Clones are not fake or illegal. You are thinking of counterfeits. Any product that violates Arduino's trademark is not a clone.

Clones are fine. This is how open source hardware works. The only problem with clones is that purchasing them doesn't support the work Arduino does that benefits the entire community, whether they use an official Arduino board or not. There are ways you can contribute to the Arduino project other than by buying official Arduino products, such as donating, providing support, contributing to software development or documentation.

jrothlander:
Curious if anyone else agrees with me and gets annoyed by this?

I don't agree with you and I don't get annoyed by it, but I do think it's a good idea to always use the correct terms. You have provided a good demonstration of why this is important. The incorrect use of the term "clone" led you to confuse clones with counterfeits.

jrothlander:
If we'd stop using the word to describe compatible boards, I think it would really help cut down on confusion.

Compatibles are different from clones. The difference is explained clearly in the blog post I shared above.

4

Clone or counterfeit.
Same difference to me and it is easier to type clone.

Per lays out a good set of points but I will still call then clones as in my mind there are two boards.
Original and Genuine (one and the same)

And yes you can probably guess the other is everything else.

The WAVGAT board is supposed to be "compatible" but most of us know it as a bad clone or fake if you will as it does not even manage to stick to the specs the way other clones do.

5

ballscrewbob:
Clone or counterfeit.
Same difference to me and it is easier to type clone.

The difference is that the cloners are being respectful of Arduino's request, while the counterfeiters are stealing their trademark. Low quality counterfeit boards make Arduino look bad because people think it's an official board. The people who buy counterfeits contact Arduino for support when something goes wrong with their board, wasting support resources. So if you call a counterfeit a clone, you are elevating it to a higher category it doesn't deserve to be in.

ballscrewbob:
The WAVGAT board is supposed to be "compatible" but most of us know it as a bad clone or fake if you will as it does not even manage to stick to the specs the way other clones do.

WAVGAT makes some clones.

They also make derivatives such as boards with CH340 instead of FT232RL or ATmega16U2, boards with the LGT8F328P instead of ATmega328P, Pro Minis with a different pinout, boards with extra through holes for the pins, boards with different USB connectors (e.g. mini instead of micro)

They also make compatibles such as the "Pro Mega" and boards with AVR + ESP8266.

Of course, their derivatives and compatibles may be clones of the derivatives and compatibles originally designed by a different company. I always have trouble figuring out which of the Chinese companies were the original designers.

I've never seen WAVGAT advertising counterfeits. It's actually pretty rare to see counterfeits advertised online these days. When I first started using Arduino they were all over the place. Perhaps Arduino has gotten more active in protecting their trademark since then, or maybe the online marketplaces have started taking enforcement more seriously.

My huge annoyance with WAVGAT was that they were advertising boards as having the ATmega328P, when they actually had the LGT8F328P (which you could consider an ATmega328P "derivative" I suppose). There's nothing wrong with selling LGT8F328P boards as long as you're honest about what they are.

Since then, I've seen them selling boards with "WAVGAT" actually printed on the microcontroller. I don't know what the deal is with that. Perhaps just a rebranded LGT8F328P.

6

larryd:
Put your efforts into learning the platform ;).

+1

...R

7

More here.

Tomato, tomato, potato, potato.

Let's call the whole thing off.

8

I see less outright fakes than I ever did before which is what I think you are noticing too Per.

However that leaves derivatives and clones.

Clones is still easier to type and still distinguishes between a TRUE Arduino and everything else :grin:

Also going with Awols stance :smiling_imp:

9

ballscrewbob:
I see less outright fakes than I ever did before which is what I think you are noticing too Per.

However that leaves derivatives and clones.

Clones is still easier to type and still distinguishes between a TRUE Arduino and everything else :grin:

Also going with Awols stance :smiling_imp:

Then you are contributing to the problem and not helping the thousands of new Arduino users that are getting confused when they are trying to understand what to purchase.

10

Robin2:
Put your efforts into learning the platform...R

I get where you are coming from and that probably would have been my first response... and I did put in the time to learn the platform years ago. I've been doing electronics since about 1985 when I was 13 and started working full time in software when I was 18 with C in 1990. I started working with the Arduino probably 5 years ago. But I consider myself a bit newbie because I don't spend a lot of time on it and haven't kept up the past year or two.

Now I am developing curriculum for electronics and I am including Arduino in my microcontroller sections. I'm working on a section in regards to clones, compatibles, etc. I keep running into dozens of people every day misusing the term "cloned". And hence my posting here to get other people's opinion on this.

11

jrothlander:
Then you are contributing to the problem and not helping the thousands of new Arduino users that are getting confused when they are trying to understand what to purchase.

I disagree.

Think you are splitting hairs here.
There are many posts along the lines of "what should I buy" if you take the time to look for them.
My answer is usually along the lines of "what can you afford" but pretty much always suggests a REAL or TRUE Arduino and the reason is for the additional materials that are part of the kit.

Because we have to deal with many variations of board for Q&A it is always quicker to say "do you have a real or clone" as that often differentiates between the advice we can give.

I see no reason to ask " do you have a derivative, a fake, a clone, a true or a variation of X board" as that certainly sounds condescending to the often new user on the other end.
Do you have a real or a true Arduino btw we dont care which" comes across much better and often puts the OP at ease as they know I am not going to judge thier buying habits.
Yes I have a large mixture of both TRUE and clones here too but does than make me a bad person ?
Nope but it does mean I can often answer questions based on some limited experience.

Would you exclude all users from the forum that have a derivative, a fake, a clone, or a variation of X board just because they bought it without full technical knowledge ?

Beginning to wonder if this topic is better suited for bar sport ?

12

pert:
I haven't seen the term used in that context so I disagree with you saying "everyone uses".

Search on Google for "how to build an arduino clone". The first is from Arduino and shows you how to program your own ATMega chip. They do correctly call it a "compatible" board. The second is from maker.pro doing the same and they call it a clone. The third is from likehacker.com and they call it a clone, then makeusof.com calls it a clone, then instructables.com uses the correct terms, eletroschematics.com uses correct terms, then rheinglodheavy.com calls the process a clone. That is what I get on page 1. Most are titled things like "Build your own Arduino Clone". In fact, I've read through probably 50 tutorials on how to program the ATMega chip using Arduino and just about all of them use the word "clone" to describe the process. This is 100% what the community takes "clone" to mean. This is the whole point I am trying to make. In my opinion, if we stopped calling them clones, the platform and community would better off.

pert:
Arduino publishes the design files and anyone can send those files to a PCB manufacturer, then assemble the board with the same components used on the official board. That's the very definition of a clone.

Actually, that's not the definition. If that is the definition, apply that to the IBM 8086. It doesn't work.

I think you are confusing Massimo Banzi's definition with the actual definition. Words are defined by their usage and no one has used the term clone to describe an open-source hardware design before Arduino, at least that I am aware of. The term clone in the hardware world has always been based on IBM 8086 cloning and the PC clone market, which implies an unethical copying of a design. That is not possible with an open-sourced design. So Massimo adjusted the definition to fit Arduino's model and has confused thousands of people. But I agree with him and how he has adjusted the definition to fit his company. I just don't think that definition is working and it has caused a lot of confusion. So why continue it?

pert:
Wrong. Clones are not fake or illegal. You are thinking of counterfeits. Any product that violates Arduino's trademark is not a clone.

That is exactly what I said. But this is NOT what the community takes it to mean. The proof is in the Google search.

pert:
The only problem with clones is that purchasing them doesn't support the work Arduino does that benefits the entire community.

Arduino only gets less than 1% from those official boards. So my Arduino UNO that I paid $23 or my Mega ADK I paid $59 for, Arduino only got maybe 23-cents and 59-cents. The 16 compatible/cloned boards I have, Arduino didn't get anything for those. But neither did they get anything for the dozens of ATMega chips I have. But Arduino recommends using the ATMega to build your own boards. It is the same thing in my opinion, but it is also why I believe that Arduino has been so well adopted. If they didn't do this, they'd just be the same as any other microcontroller and I would have probably continued using my old Parallax Propeller board or struggling with the ATMega and not moved over to Arduino in the first place.

pert:
I don't agree with you and I don't get annoyed by it, but I do think it's a good idea to always use the correct terms. You have provided a good demonstration of why this is important. The incorrect use of the term "clone" led you to confuse clones with counterfeits. Compatibles are different from clones. The difference is explained clearly in the blog post I shared above.

I think you missed my point. My point is that Massimo adjusted the term to fit his open-source model. That is NOT the way the rest of the world and even many within Ardunio community take "cloned" to mean.

I really appreciate your response and being able to argue this points through a bit with someone else. I hope you do not take my attempt to defined my position as negative, as that is not the point. My point is to just try to logically work through this with some people in the community and help me nail some of these issues down while sharing my thoughts with others.

13

jrothlander:
Search on Google for "how to build an arduino clone". The first is from Arduino and shows you how to program your own ATMega chip. They do correctly call it a "compatible" board. The second is from maker.pro doing the same and they call it a clone. The third is from likehacker.com and they call it a clone, then makeusof.com calls it a clone,

[......]

So what ?

In another context there is programming concept known as duck-typing - if it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck and waddles like a duck then it is a duck. To my mind Arduino clones fit this concept very nicely.

...R

14

Robin2:
So what ?

In another context there is programming concept known as duck-typing - if it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck and waddles like a duck then it is a duck. To my mind Arduino clones fit this concept very nicely.

...R

Yeah, but in that case your duck is probably just be a goose. And your going to be surprised because it bites!

In the end, I think using the wrong terms takes aware from or insult the derived or compatible boards does a major disservice to the Arduino community. Personally, a couple of the derived boards is what got me first interested in Arduino. It makes me wonder why the community is all about open-source but the second anyone uses the open-source design to build their own boards, the community comes down on them as if they have done something unethical. So why make it open source if you think using it is unethical?

Take Massimo's article quoted above. He mentions that he wanted to make them open source. But then in the next few sentences says that if you buy one, you are not supporting Arduino. So why did he make it open source? This all sounds contradictory.

<>I just discovered why Massimo made Arduino open source. He did it not for what you might think, but to protect Arduino. He said since the school he worked at was closing down, he was concerned about them claiming ownership and shutting it down. So he made it open source so they could continue the project regards of what happened with the school. I totally get that now. Makes a lot of sense to me. From there, then they realized the benefits of open source and allowing the community to have input. But the business model is new and there's a lot of unknowns.<>

I'm fine with calling the clones if everyone understood what Arduino means by it. But they don't. Most people take clone to be an unethical reverse engineering process because of the history of cloning the IBM 8086 chip.

Anyway... I've got what I needed here. I wanted to understand this better and argue through the points to better my lessons on Arduino. I certainly accomplished that and I appreciate everyone your input.

15

jrothlander:
Most people take clone to be an unethical reverse engineering process because of the history of cloning the IBM 8086 chip.

You may be demanding accuracy from us but you don't seem to be applying it yourself. The 8086 chip was designed by Intel. The original IBM PC used the 8088.

When you refer to "cloning the IBM 8086 chip" it's not clear whether you are referring to the microchip or the cloning of the IBM PC. Considering that IBM published the schematics for their IBM PC right from the start it was not difficult to make a copy and I strongly suspect that it was IBM's intention that people should do so in order to gain market share for the design.

...R

16

Robin2:
You may be demanding accuracy from us but you don't seem to be applying it yourself. The 8086 chip was designed by Intel. The original IBM PC used the 8088.

When you refer to "cloning the IBM 8086 chip" it's not clear whether you are referring to the microchip or the cloning of the IBM PC. Considering that IBM published the schematics for their IBM PC right from the start it was not difficult to make a copy and I strongly suspect that it was IBM's intention that people should do so in order to gain market share for the design.

...R

Oh brother! I hope you are not serious and there is some sarcasm here. Actually, if you want to be technically correct, the 8088 was not IBMs either and it was copied from the Intel 8086. IBM just decided to use it. I get that.

Robin2:
When you refer to "cloning the IBM 8086 chip" it's not clear whether you are referring to the microchip or the cloning of the IBM PC.

I actually used the word "chip". Don't you think that is being clear that I meant "chip" when I said exactly that? I think you are just trying to find something to complain about.

But my point still stands. The history of these early chips are what people use to define as clone and people equate with being illegal or unethical. They do not go by Massimo's definition, and hence the problem.

If you change the meaning of the word and the people you are talking do to not know it, I think it is a mistake. For proof, I refer to Humpy Dumpty in "Alice in Wonderland"...

“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”

And if my attempt at humor fails, just go to Amazon and look up any Ardunio board and read the questions and comments. There will be dozens asking if it is a clone, fake, illegal, etc.. I just found one yesterday that said the Arudino Pro Mini built by SparkFun was a clone and another that said it was a fake. Nope, they are the licensed manufacturer for Arduino in the US.

Regardless, if I referenced the wrong chip or not, my point doesn't change. And besides, they still call chips x86 today based on the 8086 name, and they certainly are not. So if Intel and IBM call it them x86, I certainly can call the 8088 an x86 in error... when I am reaching back over 30-years from memory. I think that is reasonable.

17

Give it a rest.

...R

18

Robin2:
Give it a rest.

...R

+1

19

Robin2:
Give it a rest.

And here as well, please.

20

Robin2:
Give it a rest.

...R

+1 {yawn}