Arduino compatible bare PCBs
RussellMc email (remove spam text)
On 7 September 2017 at 17:26, Clint Jay <gmail.com> wrote: cjaysharp
> Can you call it "theft" if it's an open source design?
> On 7 Sep 2017 6:10 am, "William Westfield" <mac.com> wrote: westfw
> â€‹... â€‹
> Neither is as cheap as the CH340, though Iâ€™m not sure what the added
> requirement for an extra crystal does to a self-assembled design. The
> CH340 is in a more hobbyist-friendly package, too. Iâ€™m sort-of proud of
> the Advances the Chinese have made in the Arduino; theyâ€™re well past
> theft at this point!
> â€‹ ...
â€‹No. A major aspect in the Arduino concept was that software and hardware
were open source.
With one significant but insignificant exception the Chinese are, without
exception AFAICS, adhering to that concept.
The exception is the name "Arduino". This deemed by the original creators
(all several independent groups of them) to be applicable only to the
"original" or "genuine" product.
While this may well be true at law, it is an unfortunate detraction* from
the overall concept as, if you are able to make something that walks just
like a duck and which uses duck DNA, to the extent that it is
indistinguishable from variants of 'real' ducks, it seems very unfortunate
that you are not allowed to CALL it a duck.
Permissible are Duck-like, Duck-compatible, maybe even Duck clone or
"copy", bur not Ducuino, er Arduck er ... whatever.
Maybe Arduin0 is OK?
Similar 'minor' obfuscation seems to work for eg the PDLO KNGIHT" genuine
non-wool (not labelled) hat I'm wearing at present (5amish, cold, got up to
do an urgent job, bed calls)
* add "IMHO"s as requisite.
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
In reply to: <CAN7ULzT8jPprrDYJdYxSKb0jryrj10_LVynMRouUs3tzFANrDg@mail.gmail.com>
See also: www.piclist.com/techref/pcbs.htm?key=pcb
You must be a member of the
piclist mailing list
(not only a www.piclist.com member) to post to the