I found this news on a website in Brazil.
I couldn't find any more information in English.
Is it true or fake?
“Qualcomm is already being accused of "ruining" Arduino.”
Hi @ruilviana. I see the authors of the article were responsible enough to link to Arduino's response to concerns about the changes to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, but to make sure it won't be overlooked by the forum members, I'll also link to it here:
1 Like
Here is a link to the Adafruit article that explains more: Did Qualcomm kill Arduino for good? | Molecularist
Can someone from Arduino explain clearly whats going on. If its going to be that restrictive then may just put my arduino stuff in storage - just joking.
Really sounds like Qualcom has to update to reality.
It is perfectly understandable to be concerned about the changes, but I urge the community to make sure your concerns are based on fact. There is a lot of vagueness, hyperbole, FUD, misinformation, etc. circulating in the commentary on the subject. If you only base your conclusions on what you read in that commentary, you are likely to be misled.
For anyone who cares about this subject, I strongly recommend you take the time to review the actual changes to the policies.
Here is the previous version of the Privacy Policy:
https://web.archive.org/web/20251012061303/https://www.arduino.cc/en/privacy-policy/
and the current one here:
https://www.arduino.cc/en/privacy-policy/
Here is the previous version of the Terms of Service:
https://web.archive.org/web/20251011041112/https://www.arduino.cc/en/terms-conditions/
and the current one here:
https://www.arduino.cc/en/terms-conditions/
One thing I often see people getting wrong is in their interpretation of what is meant by "platform" in the policies. It refers to the Arduino website, not to Arduino's open source software and hardware products.
1 Like
Instead of reading kilometers of Terms, Arduino could provide simple list of actual changes to prevent confusion.
3 Likes
First of all, I would like to thank you for adding some clarity to what has become a very confusing situation. I have been attempting to make sense of it myself, both to relay to my YouTube and Web audience and to decide how to proceed with future videos and articles (i.e., “should we continue to use and support Arduino?”).
I have compared, with the assistance of several AI chatbots, the difference between the old and new Privacy Policy and Terms of Service. It’s produced a ton of information, which I will condense in my next video.
As I have no desire to become part of the problem, spreading false information, I would like you to comment on the factuality of these three issues:
- The "Perpetual License" Trap: Under the Old rules, if you posted a cool project code to the Arduino Cloud and later decided you wanted to make it a private commercial product, you could delete it from Arduino, and their right to use it ended. Under the New rules, Qualcomm has a legal right to keep a copy of that code, modify it, and potentially use it in their own products forever, without paying you, even if you delete your account.
- The "Qualcomm Loophole": The new policies treat Arduino not as a separate company but as a "Qualcomm Group company." This means your data isn't just staying in Italy with Arduino; it can legally flow into Qualcomm's massive data lakes used for advertising, chip development, and AI training.
- "Open" vs. "Cloud": Arduino defends these changes by saying, "Anything that was open, stays open" (like the hardware schematics). However, the new stuff (the AI features on the Uno Q, the Cloud editor) is treated as a proprietary service where you have zero rights to see how it works.
Again, I appreciate your input.
Thank you
5 Likes
Everybody has the right of retaining copies of accessible files. But a copy does not establish by itself any right to publish or use that file. The granted rights/license can e.g. be included in a file, in a project (library...) file or in server rules.
Every author can grant different rights on newer file versions, not affecting the rights on older versions.
Why not change the wording to address the confusion? Just a thought.
I don't think it should be any surprise that this would be a result of Qualcomm acquiring Arduino. It is perfectly understandable to be concerned about the consequences of the acquisition, but calling it a "loophole" seems nonsensical.
This is not a change. It was already in the previous version of the Terms of Service, which was instated long before the Qualcomm acquisition. See section 6.2 in this 2024-11-27 archive circa the introduction of the specific wording in question:
6.2 The User is prohibited to:
- translate, decompile or reverse-engineer the Platform or the Site, or engage in any other activity designed to identify the algorithms and logic of the Platform's or the Site’s operation, unless to the extent expressly allowed by Arduino or by the applicable licence agreements in place;
Arduino releases a lot of software and hardware under open source licenses, but not everything. That has been the case for many years. It is nothing new. Arduino has always reserved all intellectual and industrial property rights to the things that are not offered under an open source license.
I am a big advocate of open source, but I also think that we should be understanding if companies who are making significant contributions to the open source ecosystem also choose to keep specific things closed.
Arduino Cloud Editor has been closed source from its very beginning (well over a decade ago) (though the companion Arduino Cloud Agent application has always been open source).
As for the UNO Q, I think the licensing is clearly documented. Much of the "AI features" are implemented by the software in this repository, which has an MPL-2.0 open source license:
If the licensing of a specific piece of software or hardware is unclear, please let us know and we'll try to clarify the situation.
1 Like
Arduinos biggest asset in my opinion is their IDE and the UNO lineup.
The Q in my personal opinion is a different animal, and it's Qualcomms chip on the board, so it stands to reason their rules apply on that particular board. (What those rules are, we will find out the hard way probably)
Legal stuff is probably going to be hashed out after the fact. We are only seeing the beginning of it. Probably have to ask Qualcomm to really know and then have it in writing and signed dated, and notarized 
Well I've been looking forward to getting the Uno Q 4gb allegedly released in November but November is almost over.
Qualcomm isn't looking so good keeping promises.
I'll keep supporting Arduino unless things go south fast. I'm a loyal person especially to things that just work, like Arduinos and Toyotas. 
My only problem is they said they were going to release the 4GB and advertise the hell out of it. then they don't deliver on promises right after aquiring Arduino. That would be like me promising a deadline at work and I don't even show a twinkle of progress a month later. My job would be under scrutiny. So yeah there's a lot of valid reasons people are upset.
But I'm like our friend at the DB workshop said, I'm not for spreading rumors either.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "the hard way". The licenses under which the hardware design files and related software are offered are well defined.
It is true that most of us don't find it easy to read the text of open source/creative commons licenses, as they are legal documents. However, there is a lot of information on the Internet about these standardized licenses. If you are interested in learning about them, the high quality resources are available to allow you to do so.
3 Likes
"Terms and Conditions" legalese is one thing, written by lawyers to limit the liability of the companies, and support their "interests."
But the ACTUAL "interests" of a company are more ambiguous, and the way that the legalese is used and enforced is open to some level of interpretation. You can see this sort of thing all the time with individual slapping GPL on some code that they've published, even though that isn't exactly applicable, and doesn't really match their intent (optiboot, for example. But GPL in general is "weird" when it comes to libraries for embedded systems.)
And I could have told you that recent laws passed regarding "child protection", "right to be forgotten", and "content moderation" are capable of having "bad side effects." (look at the whole recent discussion on "anonymizing" inactive users, for example.)
If Qualcomm's intent is to ruin the open-sourceness of the Arduino world, they can probably interpret the current (or previous) terms of service in harmful ways. Or change those term willy-nilly (surely you all have gotten "we're changing our terms of service" messages for other services and products? "Accept the new terms or go away.")
If there intent is NOT to change the general operation of things, then everything will be fine.
Only time will tell, really.
To respond quite simply: harmful, helpful, or neutral.
Anytime a company takes over ownership of another, either they like how things are run, and don't change anything.
Or they don't like how things are run and want to change everything.
Or they really like how things are run and invest in the company to see just how profitable it can become.
At the end of the day, the boss of a company that's publicly on the stock market is it's share holders. Look closely at Qualcomm on the stock market and it always exceeds it's quarterly earnings margin. So the company acquired Arduino because it sees it as profitable.
That's not a bad thing to be profitable. But as far as the legal stuff goes it's never cut and dried.
I love beef and venison jerky
Please note the context of my reply:
The arduino.cc Terms of Service don't apply to using the UNO Q board. In regards to the board, the "rules that apply" will be the licenses of the software you are using with the board.
In the specific case where you decide to do something with the hardware design files released by Arduino, then the license under which those files (Creative Commons BY-SA 4.0) are offered will apply.
The arduino.cc Terms of Service are only applicable in the case where you are using the arduino.cc website. The service most directly relevant to the UNO Q would be the Arduino Cloud IoT dashboard you can use to interact with the board over the Internet. But keep in mind, the use of Arduino Cloud with the board is completely optional. If for some reason you don't feel comfortable using the Arduino Cloud services, that is perfectly fine and you will not find that this limits your ability to use the UNO Q in any other way (including being able to create equivalent projects implemented in an alternative manner).
All that is well and good if you are talking about the arduino.cc website or the Arduino company in general, but you specified that you are talking about the UNO Q.
None of that is relevant to using things that have been released under an open source license (or Creative Commons in the case of the hardware design files). The license is what the license is. The IP released under an open source/Creative Commons license is perpetually available for use under that license. The great thing about these licenses is that the motivations and practices of the entity who granted you that license are not relevant. The rights you have under the licenses are very well defined. These are standardized licenses used across the entire open source/creative commons ecosystem, not something devised by Arduino or Qualcomm. You have the same rights regardless of whether the entity who granted you that license is the most wonderful in the world, or the most horrible. You only need to ensure you comply with the terms of the license (and keep in mind the primary purpose of these licenses is ensuring the freedom of use by you and others, not in limiting that use).
You do yourself great harm by taking this attitude of being fearful based on vague "vibes" about the situation. If it is something that concerns you, make the effort to actually understand the facts of the situation. If you do that and there is something specific you are having trouble understanding, or that concerns you, then you are very welcome to post about that. Or if you instead prefer focus to progressing with your projects, then that is entirely understandable.
Too many people in the community are taking the approach of commenting on the situation without making the effort to first understand the facts. That is very counterproductive. We are a technical community dedicated to sharing knowledge, not some conspiracy theory group on Facebook. We should be better than this. It is perfectly understandable to be concerned about specific actual facts, and discussions based on analyzing the implications of the specific facts can be productive. However, for the most part the discussions are not at all productive because everyone is just making lazy kneejerk reactions based on the vague vibes they are getting from reading the commentary of others who did the same.
Please explain how I'm harming myself.
And I'm definitely not afraid.
I'm very interested in seeing how things will play out here actually.
I'm interested in seeing the Q 4gb in action and seeing where it goes.
Honestly I thought we were having a productive conversation. I actually have no emotions concerning this.
I do tend to have a dry sense of humor sometimes. I make jokes after talking about subjects to lighten the topic a bit.
I apologize if I'm come across as rude or accusative. That was not my intention I assure you.
If I'm offending anyone please say so and I will 100% stop commenting on the subject.
Warm Regards
Perhaps not you specifically, but there are "people" already going "I guess I'll start looking at RPi and other IDEs." That's definitely premature overreaction.
By approaching the world in a scientific manner, we can accomplish incredible things.
The path of irrational fear leads to dark places. Maybe today it will only cause you to pointlessly avoid using the UNO Q for your project because you fear that it will put you under some unknown obligation to a corporation, no big deal. But if you continue in that way, you can end up hiding in a hole you dug out in the woods with your head wrapped in tinfoil to avoid the government mind control rays.
How about a more simple example. Let's say you are working on a project and you find a library that would be useful. But it was created by Arduino, and Arduino is owned by Qualcomm, and you remember you saw something on the Internet about how they have some bad policies. So now there are two paths forward:
- Refrain from using the library due to some vague fear
- Check the license under which the library is released and determine that it is a standard open source license perfectly suitable for your project, which won't limit you in any way
If you take the first approach, you harm your progress for no reason.
It's not that I'm offended, but that I am someone who cares about facts and reason, and for the ability of the community to achieve their goals via a scientific approach to technical endeavors.
I want this community to operate on facts and reason, and come to conclusions based on that basis. I have no interest in swaying the conclusion, but I will continue to advocate for operating on facts and reason.
A someone who is very passionate about the subject of open source (and free sharing of information in general), I am very concerned about the lack of understanding of open source licenses that is being displayed by a lot of the commentary on this subject. Open source is a cornerstone of this community. When community members act as if open source software and hardware can be taken away at the whim of a corporation, they are unjustly diminishing the incredible achievements for all of humanity that have been made through the open source movement.
I see this change:
from:
to:
A change of rights (not just words) hidden in one sentence now twice as long as before doesn't make me very confident about other things in the new terms.
Why does the new owner wanted to change that?
I can tell you that there is a potential benefit to the forum from this specific change. The moderators regularly receive requests from forum users for the deletion of their posts. Perhaps someone who got help with their school project and is now trying to cover their tracks.
Such deletions are very harmful because the forum helpers hope that, beyond only helping the user making the request, the topic might serve as a reference to help many others with similar questions in the years to come. If the user's posts are deleted, then the context that gave the posts from the helpers meaning is lost, and with it the valuable efforts of the helpers is greatly diminished. Even worse, the person requesting assistance is usually the topic creator, and so when their topic is deleted all the replies from the helpers are also deleted as a side effect.
There are many thousands of people wanting help with their Arduino projects and only some dozens of helpers here to provide that assistance. So we rely on the magic of freely sharing information on the Internet to multiply the benefit of our efforts.
That said, I'm not sure how significant the change actually is in reality, due to the fact that data protection regulations will supercede this agreement, as is pointed out:
without detriment to User's statutory rights (including applicable data protection rights)
That was funny.
And I see your points here. I did some more research and it seems that most of the 'propaganda' concerning Qualcomm stems from a single writer at Adafruit. From there it blew out of proportion.
Same thing happens all the time. Stock market crashes, Trump tariff checks, etc. A single writer starts a bunch of podcasts or articles stating this or that, taking things out of conteext. However after the smoke clears everything becomes crystal clear.
Most of what we have in the world is 'half truths'. The only thing that is 100% true Is what has already happened, what is finished and done.
That is what I predict will happen here.
After the articles and all the smoke clears we will be left with the facts. And I do believe that Arduino will be better than ever: based on open source with a thriving community.
My actions prove my beliefs because I'm still here. (The word believe stems from the word love (to trust, rely on, to cling to), just like the heart on the Uno R4 LED matrix).
