Arduino’s post reframes the backlash as a misunderstanding, but it skips every issue raised :( The statement repeats “we’re open-source” without addressing the clauses that expand corporate control, restrict user rights, and extend Qualcomm’s data access. Nothing in the blog post resolves the concerns about perpetual content licensing, cross-group data sharing, or the new enforcement language around patents, usage tracking, and reverse-engineering. They also still have not answered direct questions about: • Why users must grant an irrevocable, perpetual, transferable license over all content. • Why reverse-engineering prohibitions were added at all. • Why there is a five-year username retention timeline • What Qualcomm systems receive user data, and how that aligns with earlier promises of independence • Why the AI logging and monitoring language is as broad as it is. • Why the Q CAD file is released as “open source” but cannot be opened, and why no one will say which tool opens it. Their statement is not transparency. It’s a branding message pretending to be transparency. The concerns remain unanswered.... @cristianoamon @mbanzi @FabioViolante @MarcelloMajonchi @Qualcomm