(edited, did a bit of research after complaining)

"It will be licensed by us for more permissive use on RP2040 (like cyw43-driver)"

Seen on https://github.com/raspberrypi/pico-sdk/issues/1164

What does that mean, though? Wouldn't they need an open source license for everything in BTStack except non-RP2040 drivers? There's a daemon, there's a "libusb", etc. This sounds like it'd require open sourcing practically all of BTStack, not just one driver?

There's really not that much. "libusb" is just the port of BTStack to the libusb API.

I'm just curious about the backstory; did the RPi foundation pay BTStack to be ok with this sudden open sourcing?

It sounds like it won't be open source. It'll be redistributable, but legally only usable on Raspberry Pis. Just like cyw43-driver.

Okay, so the minimal pessimistic interpretation of "more permissive". Bummer.

I was so excited until I read that. I’m working on an IoT device that I hope to sell and was going to build it around an RPi; I would love to switch from nano to pico but need better Bluetooth.

The motto of Bluetooth is "It's going to work great ...next year!". I've had so many challenges working with it in my past projects (even writing my own firmware) that I now try to avoid it and go directly to wifi.

So go ahead and use Bluetooth on the Pico? Selling your IoT device is explicitly supported, you just have to get a license.

Yes, but at what cost per unit?

Will you be able to source enough rpi modules? I guess your plan isn't just "buy them off the (online) shelves" because it's nigh-impossible to get more than a couple that way these days.

That's only true for the computer boards. The Pico never had supply issues. And apparently, computer boards will also be back in stock starting from Q2.

See my other comment above, this will be allowed on RP2040.