Is Raspberry Pi PCB Open Source?

Posted by

The Raspberry Pi family of small single board computers have found huge popularity among hobbyists and tinkerers thanks to their low cost, open ecosystem and massive software support. But are the Pi hardware designs similarly open?

We will examine how much of the Pi platform design details including PCB layouts, schematics and Bill of Materials (BoMs) are published under open licenses allowing custom derivatives. Tradeoffs limiting fuller disclosure shed light on balancing open innovation against competitive protections in hardware.

Raspberry Pi Background

Let’s briefly recap capabilities making Pi systems attractive for novices through experts across embedded applications:

  • Affordable credit card sized computers from $5 upwards
  • General purpose CPU + GPU + Video/Audio + USB interfaces
  • Linux and other OS support enabling programming versatility
  • Huge range of add-on HAT extension boards

Raspberry Pi trading entity – Raspberry Pi Foundation continues advancing these products keeping the ecosystem vibrant through frequent new releases while managing manufacturing partnerships.

What Pi design details are public?

Given the mission of providing low cost computing for education, Raspberry Pi publishes extensive design collateral:

1. Functional Specifications

Comprehensive interface capabilities, performance benchmarks, configuration options and operating parameters published for each Pi model guiding integration.

2. Mechanical Drawings

Exact board dimensions, connector placement measurements, mounting hole spacing covering all mainstream Pi models openly available. Enables case design.

3. Hardware User Guides

Register descriptions for key onboard peripherals like USB controllers, GPIO layout and wireless radios aid development of supporting software and drivers.

Such documents provide excellent insight into Pi hardware without requiring owners reverse engineer implementations themselves. This smoothens the onboarding gradient making Pi systems highly accessible.

But certain key facets around the PCB layout itself remain closed. We examine why next.

What Pi design details are private?

Balancing openness for innovation against market competitiveness, key facets of Pi implementation kept confidential:

1. PCB Layout/Schematics

The board artwork Gerber files, symbol libraries and schematics for mapping actual PCB routing remains private intellectual property of Raspberry Pi Trading.

2. Bill of Materials (BoMs)

The exact components models, vendors used for the Pis are confidential although functionally identical substitutes likely possible discerning from application notes and forum posts.

Such information could enable carbon copy clones capitalizing on Pi market ecosystem efforts without investing matching engineering costs – an issue plaguing open hardware projects.

3. Component Placement

Exact locations of constituents like main processor, memories, RF radios etc considered proprietary knowledge to mitigate plagiarism exposure. But functional groupings can be partly inferred from public dimensions.

Withholding these last three elements raises cloning barrier somewhat helping sustain commercial viability of Pi availability.

Open Hardware Tradeoffs

Raspberry Pi exemplifies the tricky balancing act between proprietary ownership and community open innovation in competitive hardware markets:

Benefits of Openness

  • Maximizes adoption and ecosystem network effects
  • Fosters agile collaborative innovation
  • Commoditizes peripherals increasing accessibility

Costs of Openness

  • Lose licensing revenue streams
  • Increased cloned competition
  • Forced into services monetization

Partially open core tactics keep some complex components like SoC firmware closed preventing outright duplication while disclosing adequate to spur collaboration around the platform.

Next we elaborate why open hardware faces adoption barriers before examining initiatives improving sustainability.

Open Hardware Adoption Challenges

Fully opening hardware upper limits commercial returns challenging sustainability:

Cloning Risk

Open designs get cloned cheaper since competitors bypass R&D costs. Market flooding with such counterfeits tanks aspirational pricing sinking profitability.

IP Loss

Patent prospecting harder for publicly released designs causing IP erosion over time reducing differentiation.

User Accessibility

Complex open designs still pose customization barriers beyond typical user expertise and tool access compared to turnkey commercial products.

Addressing such friction points helps increase open hardware relevance across user segments.

Initiatives Improving Open Hardware Viability

Various approaches try balancing openness and value capture:

1. Open Parts Not the Whole

Releasing periphery building blocks like breakout headers, addons etc grows an interoperability ecosystem while retaining custom core IP like SoCs private.

2. Services NOT Product Focus

Gibraltar type open hardware models instead monetize associated cloud services, customization, solutions integration rather than pure hardware sales.

3. Trusted Certification

Badges verifying open designs were unforked, tested, secured etc build user confidence choosing among likely clone variants.

4. Micropayments

Voluntary tiny user contributions sustain open development compensating for the lack of compulsory licensing fees in commercial hardware.

Such trends gradually improve viability allowing open collaborations compete alongside proprietary platforms. Over time hybrid licensing emerges resembling open source software and may dominate the 90% use cases with commercial systems cornering cutting edge niches.

Case Study: BeagleBone Open Hardware

The popular BeagleBone family of embedded development boards offers an instructive case study of maximizing openness for community adoption.

What’s Open

  • PCB layout files and schematics
  • BoMs without specific brands
  • Mechanical drawings

What’s Closed

  • Bootloader, FPGA firmware code
  • Sourcing of key ICs
  • Trademarks

This allows legally cloning the board while retaining control over key proprietary elements that sustain lead developer CircuitCo’s value orchestrating the ecosystem.

Result is a thriving platform retaining openness with 26 million+ boards sold demonstrating sustainability. BeagleBone thoughtfully pioneers open hardware viability.

Case Study: CHIPS Open SoC

The CHIPS Alliance led by Google and Western Digital takes the unprecedented step of open sourcing entire RISC-V microarchitecture System-on-Chips (SoCs) under royalty free licenses.

Key assets offered:

  • Verilog RTL Codes
  • Physical layout databases
  • Timing models
  • Documentation

This shift acknowledges hardware cannot be practically obscured in today’s supply chain transparency so collaboration is most efficient. Open Vertical Application Specific Integrations (ASICs) built atop CHIPS cores validate this theory delivering customized acceleration cost effectively. Such open SoCs may grow notably as hardware gets increasingly commoditized.

The Future of Open Pi Hardware

As ecosystem matures could Pi hardware also open further for customization?


  • Unlocks DIY improvements and derivatives
  • Expands hobbyist appeal
  • Promotes spinoff niche applications


  • Cloning hits profitability
  • Fragmentation dilutes platform consistency
  • Increased support complexity

On balance restrictive control benefits likely outweigh currently as openness dividends unclear being adequately served by HATs ecosystem.

Though if declining hardware sales necessitated services monetization in future, increased openness may help drive volume adoption counterintuitively. So longer term outlook remains fluid!


Raspberry Pi thoughtfully embraces openness in functionality disclosure helping catalyze a thriving ecosystem crossing education and industry. But pragmatically retains confidentiality of layout details necessary preventing market dilution from cloning preserving viability of volume manufacturing.

This nuanced dance sustaining innovation by not open sourcing indiscriminately shows how proprietary hardware can nurture community adoption. With initiatives improving sustainability plus changing economics, applications benefiting from partial openness should expand allowing more equitable value distribution between users and developers.


Does Raspberry Pi publish full PCB schematics and layouts?

No, Raspberry Pi foundation keeps actual PCB artwork Gerber layout files, circuit schematics and component placement locations confidential although extensive collateral on functional dimensions, interfaces and peripherals openly shared benefiting customization.

What motivates open hardware projects to retain some secrecy?

Fully open hardware risks market flooding with clones that eliminate pricing power and discourage user support obligations. So developers strategically retain confidentiality for complex IP bits sufficient to prevent outright copying while garnering collaborative benefits around disclosed facets.

What business models improve viability of open hardware?

Trusted certification allowing user contribution micro-payments, focusing monetization on associated services over pure hardware sales, releasing modular open accessories avoiding cloning entire solutions and spinoff ecosystem nurturing help open hardware become commercially sustainable to coexist with proprietary platforms.

How does BeagleBone mentor open hardware?

BeagleBone community adoption success comes from sharing PCB layouts to maximize customization while strategically limiting openness for bootloaders and chip sourcing sufficient to deter bit identical duplications retaining value for steering ecosystem innovation as lead commercial entity improving sustainability.

Does the CHIPS initiative signal shift towards open SoCs?

Yes, CHIPS marks a radical shift by open sourcing entire RISC-V architecture silicon designs usable for complete royalty free System-on-Chips (SoCs). This acknowledges hardware cannot stay opaque so collaboration and implementation diversity based business models likely essential for competitiveness.