An article appeared recently in The New Stack discussing the controversy over recent changes in Arduino’s Terms of Service.

Adafruit, described in the article as one of Arduino’s competitors, claimed on Linkedin in a post with a graphic entitled “The Death of Arduino” that the new TOS meant Arduino’s users were “explicitly forbidden from reverse engineering or even attempting to understand how the platform works unless Arduino gives permission.”

As reported here in October, Arduino was recently acquired by Qualcomm, in a move that unsettled Arduino community members due to Qualcomm’s historically uneasy relationship with open source. The controversies began brewing after that. But a recent update in Arduino’s TOS caused more friction.

Adafruit also criticized Arduino’s terms about user data and content. But these terms were fairly typical of commercial online services.

History Repeats Itself (So Why Don’t we Listen?)

A controversy over possible conflicts between TOS and the GPL also erupted in 2023 after Red Hat’s acquisition by IBM. The TOS change happened in tandem with Red Hat’s retrenching of its CENTOS distribution model. (If you want to understand more about why these CENTOS process changes were so fundamental and controversial at the time, here is my video about it from that time.) While even Software Freedom Conservancy seemed to acknowledge that the changes to Red Hat’s subscription agreements did not expressly violate the GPL on face, it echoed the concerns of many: that the change was against the spirit of GPL and detrimental to the community.

The nature of these two controversies is almost identical: a COSS company’s terms of service contain language prohibiting certain uses or allowing termination in the event of certain actions other than violating GPL. Although in both cases the TOS applies to an online service rather than GPL software, vague and overdrafted language in the TOS suggests otherwise.

It’s quite common for companies to update their commercial terms after an acquisition. The new owner wants to bring the acquisition in line with their own company processes and policies. And there is a tendency for open source communities to react badly to TOS, because they view any TOS as compromising the freedom of open source.

But both sides should be more realistic. Today, all companies are struggling with a quickly growing regulatory burden when offering online services–a burden than in itself is contrary to the freewheeling ethos of open source–and the open source community should understand this. On the other hand, acquirors should learn from Red Hat’s PR debacle, and make the relationship between any new TOS and open source licensing clear, including proactive messaging to the community about potential conflicts.

Your Customers Love You, and That’s Great, So Love Them Back

This particular complaint came from a competing COSS company rather than from the community at large, so it will probably blow over soon. But this will probably not be the end of Arduino’s open source community stewardship troubles. COSS companies that undergo acquisitions must understand that part of the cost of maintaining their communities–a key business asset–is being sensitive to their legitimate worries about the effects of the acquisition on the technology they love.