“Legit homebrew” still can be illegal depending on how it’s done.
Legally you’re allowed to modify your console because you own it, but you don’t necessarily own the software (including the OS and the firmware).
According to both UK and US law it’s illegal to bypass copy prevention mechanisms, regardless of whether piracy is your intent or not.
(Found an interesting comment about it here.)
The legality of homebrew is very muggy/grey, it’s hard to say one way or the other. It seems that in some cases it’s legal and just voids the warranty, in others the homebrew itself isn’t illegal but the process required to get the homebrew running is.
I’m not saying that hombrew ouright is or isn’t illegal or whether it’s a good thing or a bad thing, what I’m saying is that at best it’s a grey area so the word ‘homebrew’ carries those connotations with it.
Making Arduboy clones is most certainly not illegal so it’s preferable to not link making clones to a word that carries connotations of something that’s a legal grey area.
All that aside, the most common application of the term “homebrew” is used to mean putting homemade software on proprietary hardware rather than building clones of proprietary hardware, so calling Arduboy clones ‘homebrew’ would essentially be inventing a new meaning or at least extending the existing meaning.
True, though the Arduino github page has source code for Caterina, so I would assume it’s not some legally-protected proprietary secret unless the Arduboy’s version of Caterina is non-standard.
Yes it would be.
‘Hacking’ is a vague term. In that sense the ‘hacking’ wouldn’t be trying to bypass any copy-protection mechanism, it would just be reverse engineering an open source console.