"Let us be absolutely clear: we have been open-source long before it was fashionable"

This is a VERY bad attempt at self-promo, sorry.

Many other open source projects are much older, so "fashionable" is a very emotionally laden word. But, even aside from this: what matters is the now and future. You can not refer to a "glorious past" if the future just looks bleak and bad.

"The Qualcomm acquisition doesn’t modify how user data is handled or how we apply our open-source principles."

Everyone already sees that the Qualcomm take-over changed the project. There is no way to deny it. Now, perhaps it COULD lead to an improvement - who knows. But it can also lead to a stagnation or decline. We saw that with many other projects that suddenly became progressively starved down. Even without a corporate overlord that may happen, when users, hobbyists, devs, are no longer as interested. They may write fewer blog entries and so forth - decline happens.

"We periodically update our legal documents to reflect new features, evolving regulations, and best practices."

As does Mozilla - yet firefox keeps on dying and dwindling.

Sorry, but this just reads like a post mortem to me.

"Restrictions on reverse-engineering apply specifically to our Software-as-a-Service cloud applications"

Which open source licence typically were to include that? And, by the way - I am increasingly noticing how the "legal terms" try to provide provisions that aren't part of a licence. I noticed this some time ago with regard to RubyCentral slapping down meta-corporate rules on rubygems.org (see here https://blog.rubygems.org/2025/07/08/policies-live.html). So this is what corporations want to do. I don't see how this benefits the hobbyists or solo devs in any way, shape or form. And I don't agree that this "sets the record straight" either.

To me it reads like a corporate take-over of arduino. That's bad.