RISC OS Open licence in hands of lawyers

Published: 14th Jan 2007, 00:38:17 | Permalink | Printable

Ballance mulls Iyonix successor

The shared source licence being drawn up as part of the RISC OS Open project is in the hands of lawyers, it was revealed this week.

In a report to be published by Archive magazine, Castle are said to have spent a 'lot of money' on legal bills to make the licence watertight. The company fears loopholes may be found in their complex shared source agreement which could allow royalty free use of the source code for commercial purposes or let people avoid disclosing updates to the RISC OS blueprints.

In August last year, Castle revealed its plans to open up the source code to RISC OS 5, allowing third party programmers and firms to contribute to the development of the OS.

Magazine editor Paul Beverley has firmly backed the initiative after he met with Castle bosses Jack Lillingston and John Ballance during the week to discuss the progress of the ROOL project. RISC OS Open recently relaunched its website in preparation of the release of the first batch of RISC OS 5 source code, and is set to meet users at a meeting in London on Monday.

A source close to Archive said: "Paul got a better idea of what's going on. I think he thought they'd more or less given up and were just milking what was left of the Iyonix market and not really looking to the future, but it seems they are spending a lot of solicitor money trying to get the terms of the new open source licence as tight as possible.

"It will pull the rug from under RISCOS Ltd because they are going to make in due course enough of RISC OS available at a few pence per unit for people to build an Iyonix with it.

"And John revealed that they were still very much thinking towards a computer to follow on from the Iyonix, and also a separate very interesting project, so they are still in it for the long haul."

In an editorial leaked to drobe.co.uk ahead of publication next week, editor Paul Beverley confirmed it was Castle's intention to release as much of the RISC OS 5 source as possible to allow people, from punters to commercial outfits, to build their own computers to run it. Updates to the software have to be made public, allowing Castle to improve their source code and boost their intellectual property. According to Paul, CTL are trying to woo contracts with Far Eastern firms.

The low royalty cost per unit for commercial use of the RISC OS 5 source is expected to price RISCOS Ltd out of the market as it's believed ROL demands considerably higher royalties per copy of RISC OS 4 shipped. ROL have in the past said that open sourcing the OS will not be the single saviour of RISC OS because investment is needed to sustain useful development - the RISC OS Open team are working voluntarily in their spare time, for instance. It's also assumed that the operating system will continue along its two separate streams of development.

In his monthly column, Paul wrote: "I was entertained right royally by Messrs Lillingston and Ballance while we discussed the future of RISC OS, a future which is clearly an Open one.

"The open source licence (still with the lawyers after many months of careful drafting, but soon to be made available) under which RISC OS is made available either free or for pence per unit is not like the GPL one. Rather, as third parties improve RISC OS, they are obliged by the licence to publish details of those improvements and they then become part of RISC OS, i.e. they are then owned by Castle - i.e. it increases their pool of intellectual property.

"So Castle's aim is, above all, to ensure that RISC OS is used, and therefore improved, and therefore becomes more valuable and more effective - which is to everyone's advantage."

ROOL's Steve Revill and Castle's Jack Lillingston are due to appear before users in London on Monday night.

A ROUGOL organiser said: "Steve will be able to show how the new RISC OS Open website works, including the framework for managing the shared source project, and the bug tracking facilities. There may possibly also be a chance to look at the first batches of RISC OS source code released."

The event is set to take place from 7.45pm on January 15 at the Blue-eyed Maid, Borough High Street, London, SE1 1HR. RISC OS Open was voted top in the 'best ingenious idea' category in the Drobe 2006 awards.

Links

RISC OS Open website
Castle website Archive magazine website - first two issues for free for new readers

Previous: Open source Quake 2 port emerges
Next: Castle and ROS Open reveal plans for 2007

Discussion

Viewing threaded comments | View comments unthreaded, listed by date | Skip to the end

Seems like a lovely license for Castle, essentially they're getting free developers if any work done becomes their IP.

I can't see this flying with the FOSS brigade or Castle's commercial customers, so the only developers are going to be existing RO users.

No wonder they're considering an Iyonix followup, they can concentrate on the hardware and let the users write the HAL bits.

I'd be tempted by an A9 with a GPL'd Select4, but in the meantime I'll buy a 399ukp MacMini and put Linux on it thanks.

simo on 14/1/07 12:40PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

In Reply to Simo

So you want RISCOS for free but are prepared to pay for a MiniMac and then put Linux on it?

Why, the mac comes with an excellent OS.

Castle should be congratulated for try some thing new and Shared sourcing the code. This way hopefully both RISCOS camps win as ROL can take bits of the Castle developments and utilise them and Castle get more commercial work outside of our small market.

bluenose on 14/1/07 1:03PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Not only a nice license for Castle but also for us. I think it's good that Castle are safeguarding development. I wouldn't be especially keen if we were in a position where we as RISC OS users never saw the benefits of 'outside' development.

It remains to be seen how Castle's commercial customers view ROOL (I'm sure that will have been considered!) and in the meantime I'll be looking forward to the release of a successor to my Iyonix.

JohnB on 14/1/07 1:14PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

This is shaping up to be an exciting development. It could still fail due to an unworkable license or a refusal to release the most important components but if this project can deliver what it promises, this could push RISCOS forward.

I'm glad that Castle are working on a restrictive license; it's a workable strategy as opposed to 'let's just give our products away'. Any commentary is purely speculative until we get a finished license and an actual release of code.

I agree with JohnB that Castle's proposed strategy offers benefits for all parties involved.

killermike on 14/1/07 1:31PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

It will only pull the rug out from under ROL if the market stays at rock bottom. It seems the initiative is intended to increase the market significantly. If that happens ROL would be able to drop its prices accordingly.

Select/Adjust/RO6 has advantages over RO5 which are worth paying for.

There would be space for both if the market expanded.

ROL's biggest danger is not adapting to the new landscape, rather than there being no place for it.

jess on 14/1/07 1:49PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

In reply to bluenose, I don't want RISC OS for free , I want a free RISC OS, there's a difference (beer vs. speech).

I would buy a MacMini to put Linux on because I want Apple-quality hardware that's small and cheap, I had considered getting an A9 and putting Debian ARM on it too, as it beats the Mini on size, but not price or power, the same goes for a Shuttle.

The bottom line is that there may be nothing wrong with the OS, be that RISC OS or MacOSX (although I'm no longer particularly impressed with either) but if I can't do with it what I want, then what's the point? I'd prefer the hardware and a truly open OS, not half-open like Darwin/ROOL.

simo on 14/1/07 2:02PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

bluenose wrote: "So you want RISCOS for free but are prepared to pay for a MiniMac and then put Linux on it?"

Actually, I assumed he was going to buy an A9, so he would be paying for the hardware in either situation.

"Why, the mac comes with an excellent OS."

It's also a closed OS. I don't know why simo would want to buy a Mac Mini specifically if he just wants to run Linux on it. Perhaps he'd rather pay the Apple tax than the Microsoft tax.

davidb on 14/1/07 2:02PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Surely what is needed to sustain development is enugh units being sold. So is there enough of RISC OS 6 availabale to allow manufacturers to build cheaper computers from it? Presumably STD had to pay a substantial fee to make the A9.

As things stand I'd say that even the A9, let alone the Iyonix are out of reach of the majority of people.

Having said that, I think more should be made by Castle of the "legendary build quality" they used to refer to. This has given me the opportunity to continue using a RISC OS for many years and no doubt the Iyonix will still be a usable system for many, many more years when its successor is the envy of most people in the RISC OS community.

To my mind, that's one of the most important parts of Acorn and RISC OS's history, the longevity.

AW on 14/1/07 2:18PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Paul Beverley: "The open source licence"

Cluebolt required! Not even in their most deranged moments would the Open Source Initialive approve the shared source licence suggested for RISC OS "Open".

"Rather, as third parties improve RISC OS, they are obliged by the licence to publish details of those improvements and they then become part of RISC OS, i.e. they are then owned by Castle - i.e. it increases their pool of intellectual property."

Do they assign their copyright to Castle? Otherwise, Castle merely have the right to privileged licensing terms under the dubious licence - they don't own those changes at all. Still, in other parts of Royston Vasey I'm sure everything that isn't shrinkwrapped or proprietary software is "PD", so Mr Beverley is clearly on the road to enlightenment, even if he has a way to go.

guestx on 14/1/07 4:52PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

simo: "I would buy a MacMini to put Linux on because I want Apple-quality hardware that's small and cheap"

You set your sights too low, simo. I would want better quality hardware than that.

guestx on 14/1/07 4:53PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

In reply to simo: "Seems like a lovely license for Castle, essentially they're getting free developers if any work done becomes their IP. I can't see this flying with the FOSS brigade or Castle's commercial customers, so the only developers are going to be existing RO users.".

I think the license idea is good since it ensures pretty much the same as GPL does: Enhancements are fed back for all the enjoy.

Just think about how many gadgets use Linux despite GPL and then have to open up their source. Those gadgets are sometimes even more intersting than closed source ones since some community starts developing enhancements which then feed back to others or even come as an upgrade. And some commercial developer can always run part of the code on their gadget as an application which doesn't need to be open sourced...

hzn on 14/1/07 5:47PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

In reply to jess:

"It will only pull the rug out from under ROL if the market stays at rock bottom. It seems the initiative is intended to increase the market significantly. If that happens ROL would be able to drop its prices accordingly. Select/Adjust/RO6 has advantages over RO5 which are worth paying for. "

I think ROL manages to pull the run out from under ROL by themselves - all they have to do is to continue to charge subscription fees without delivering within a sensible time span. But as long as there are enough users happy to spend their money in this manner, fine for ROL. Though I think that this behaviour does make sure that the number of Select subscribers does shrink as time passes by thus ROL does reduce their market all by themselves.

Considering that as far as I can see Select4 aka RO6 as upgrade costs 2.5 years of subscription fees I do wonder if it is worth that much money. Please do not forget that the main part of Select4/RO6 is 32bitting of the OS and that has been paid in full by Ad6 for the A9home as PM@ROL stated over and over again and this 32bitting is no use to Risc PC owners anyhow.

True Select/Adjust/RO6 has advantages over RO5 which are worth paying for ... but at a reasonable price, please.

hzn on 14/1/07 6:00PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

In reply to Simo and davidb

If I read it correctly then you can do what you want with the ROOL/Castle sources only you can't do it for commercial gain without paying a fee per unit.

Take the point about the hardware though but what ever way you wish to dress it up the "Free" bit still comes down to the fact that people do not want to pay. If you were happy with the "Free" element as in your example then you can do this under the Castle licence proposals though you are encouraged to give the code back to Castle and the community.

Still being as all is not well in Linux land with the various factions then what hope do we have in RISCOS land to keep out of the endless GPL type debates.

bluenose on 14/1/07 6:01PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

In reply to bluenose: What do you mean by "all is not well in Linux land with the various factions"?

Regardless, the licence is not open source, that much is clear. It does seem to be that CTL want the gains of open-source without any of the associated costs, so power to them -- but I think it may put some people off.

takkaria on 14/1/07 6:37PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

bluenose wrote: "If you were happy with the ''Free'' element as in your example then you can do this under the Castle licence proposals though you are encouraged to give the code back to Castle and the community."

Until we see the license we won't know for sure but, from the description in the article, it doesn't sound like it's the same thing at all!

Do I as a contributor have the same rights as Castle? If I licensed my contribution under the GPL, could Castle legitimately use it? I suspect that the answers to both those questions are "no".

The as-yet-unreleased license doesn't sound as if it's a "Free" (as in Freedom) software license at all.

davidb on 14/1/07 7:04PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

I welcome the move, At the very least, if gives programmers the chance to see the source and extend or fix bits of the OS instead of having to work around them.

As far as the licence, the shared source one, as little as I know, seems a good compromise. On the off chance that I produce something useful to contribute, I'll be happy to submit it back.

jamesp on 14/1/07 7:10PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

davidb. You are not allowed to release your contribution under GPL if you used source taken from the ROOL initiative, then you would have to release it under castles licence. If our code is completly new and has nothing to do with the sources from castle you can release it anyway you want

highlandcattle on 14/1/07 7:50PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

In reply to daveb.

Well you are correct until the licence is fully published then all is not set in stone or clear.However if you take the text from the ROOL site then it does suggest that you can free of charge download, modify and use but not for commercial gain. Though you can have that commercial freedom for a price.

Anyway I agree that the devil will be in the detail and I'm sure that is why we still have not got the exact terms but it may not be long and then this debate will move on I'm sure.

Text from ROOL website

RISC OS software will be made available to third parties via a dual licensing mechanism. The first will be a free of charge (FOC) Source Code License which will give an individual/company the right to download, modify and publish RISC OS source code providing that the code is not used for any commercial purpose. The second Product Code Licence will give the right (for a small fee) for an individual/company to distribute product code to third parties for commercial use.

bluenose on 14/1/07 8:29PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

While I might agree that the "sounds" of the license is not open (in the sense GPL is), it is *open enough* to allow users to exploit and expand the OS (a good thing). If the IP becomes Castle's - so what - any contributed code will be a small proportion (initially anyway) of the total (and Castle have 100% of the existing code at the moment anyway).

This may not suit some GPL fans - fair enough - but the purpose of this is not to promote a particular OS licensing model but rather to develope and support RISC OS and this ROOL mechanism is a viable way of acchieving that.

AMS on 14/1/07 9:15PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

AMS:

agreed

epistaxsis on 14/1/07 9:31PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

To VirtualAcorn:

"The open source licence under which RISC OS is made available either free or for pence per unit ...".

Is there a chance for a much cheaper RISC OS 5 based VirtualAcorn-system?

hzn on 15/1/07 11:47AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

hzn: Only if there's a version of RISC OS 5 for Risc PC hardware, or Virtual Acorn is expanded to also emulate Iyonix hardware.

flibble on 15/1/07 11:57AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

If RISC OS 5 is open sourced, depending on which parts are available, then would it be a lot of work to modify it to run on RiscPC or A9 hardware (or any other ARM based possible future machine for that matter)?

polas on 15/1/07 12:40PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

In reply to polas: Why would you want 32bit RO5 to work on a RPC. You would lose access to all your 26bit software, or needed to run Aemulor, not to mention any podules you have installed.

sa110 on 15/1/07 1:07PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Good point, I suppose for cost reason, depending on the licence thats drawn up, such a solution might be a significantly cheaper way to upgrade an old machine than RO 4.

polas on 15/1/07 1:37PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

By the time you would have had to buy aemulor and update all your software to 32bit then it wouldn't be cheaper. But this announcement isn't about saving a few pennies on an upgrade, that neither here not there, if you aren't willing to spend £60 quid on a copy of Adjust, never mind buy a new machine at least once a decade, you aren't really going to contributing much to the future of RISC OS.

The future of RISC OS is what this is all about, it important that the licence is water tight to allow people to contribute their improvements to various RISC OS components for the benefit of all, but also to stop 3rd party commercial companies exploiting this work without giving anything back.

druck on 15/1/07 1:44PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

The emphasis was on old machine - people might have upgraded to numerous newer machines in recent times, however RO 5 might breath new life into an old machine in the loft - was just an idea

polas on 15/1/07 1:53PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

I guess it shouldn't be the hardest thing in the world depending on what castle release. My thought here is along the lines of wasn't a lot of Risc OS 5 actually developed on a RISC PC? If that is correct there must already exist in some form the components etc. to run RO5 on RPC hardware....

Why would we want to do this? Well I guess; so there is only one branch of the OS making future software development easier (ie only one OS to be supported so it will only need the software tested on multiple hardware and not multiple harware and OS versions)...

What other benefits can I see? Well if RISC OS 5 can be run on RPC hardware and the most common podules made to work then there also must be a serious number of RPC's still out there running RISC OS 3 versions that have never been upgraded to 4... And if it's cheap enough ie. free or very cheap (only cost of ROM chips) then I guess there could be a number of RISC OS 3 RPC's upgraded to latest OS meaning development of software may be more attractive for some developers that have stopped doing updates or are really just maintaining current software and not developing it.

TBH I can't see any bad outcome to making available components to allow an RPC rom to be built. Esspecially if it can maybe get some old RPC's/old RISC OS users dusted off and back in use and if they like it these people are brought back to the market and may then look to buy newer and faster hardware.

Anyway Just my thoughts - look forward to see what comes from the latest chapter in the story and hope it is very successfull.

John

mrmac on 15/1/07 1:56PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

There are good reasons to run a 32 bit OS on a RiscPC, as well as bad, but people never seem to mention them. It would also be possible (although quite a bit of work) to create a 32 bit OS that can also run 26 bit applications. (In much the same way Windows XP is 32 bit, but can run 16 bit applications, or the way Linux on an AMD64 can run 64 bit or 32 bit binaries.)

Advantages: You get to fix many of the problems that only exist in 26 bit modes (for example, shared libraries suddenly become possible), aids developers in knowing that 26 bit things are a thing of the past, even if a specific user cannot afford to upgrade their hardware, single branch of the OS to develop, instead of two, etc. Disadvantages: You may have to pay for upgrades to your 26 bit software to make them 32 bit. Also, some software might just be completely unavailable, but most Iyonix and A9 Home users seem to cope anyway.

rjek on 15/1/07 2:01PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

In reply to Polas:

So basically your after an RO5 upgrade for your RPC that costs next to nout. No wonder the RO market is it such a bad shape. Since when did Windows or Mac OS cost peanuts for the end user to purchase?

Let's all go live in the land of make believe where everthing is free, no one is in poverty or ill health and where we all worship Phoebus Apollo

sa110 on 15/1/07 3:25PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

no SA110, Im not, it was just cited as a possible reason why RO 5 might be advantageous to exist on a Risc PC. I can see people who are not willing to spend much money upgrading a machine (possibly if they havent used RISC OS for a long time but still have a RISC PC in storage, or if they have newer hardware capable of running RISC OS such as an A9 or Iyonix) finding this useful though. As mrmac said, in the first instance it might even bring some people back to the fold, whence im sure some of them could provide useful contributions.

polas on 15/01/07 3:42PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

I don't think either polas or I am proclaiming I want an RO5 upgrade for free.... I want RISC OS to continue living and not die a death...

The only think I am trying to say is it may be another small thing that brings back some users to have a look at RISC OS again and make it easier for programmers to develop software which may encourage them to actually develop again and update their software....

I am not willing to, so quickly, dismiss people simply because they didn't or havn't paid the money to get RISC OS 4. There are so many more logical and likely reasons to this than them being a cheap skate not willing to spend money (did they just stop using computers all together? No most will have jumped ship to another OS and spent good money on products on that platform. There are also lots of valid reasons for them to switch to alternatives due to the type of work they did, or were not fully convinced by RISC OS 4 and the prospects it had of new hardware and if/when it may be available in the future and they maybe didn't belive the new hardware announced would actually appear. Anyway, by the time the new hardware did appear they had already switched.

TBH your thinking seems to be that if these people didn't pay for RISC OS4 they are not going to be buy new hardware. I belive it's more like now they have invested in Mac or X86 boxes they are not willing to pay not a small ammount of money for RISC OS as they have spent the money on their current PC.

So we need to grow the market to survive, as I guess it won't survive with the current pot of people using RISC OS. One way to do this is entice people who use to use RISC OS back into the market. One way which I and a few others obviously think may help is to see the OS running on a RPC they have sitting in the loft (there must be 1000's) for a low cost and you may just let them see enough of RISC OS to make them look into it a little more and they may then consider buying hardware esspecially if Castle follow this up with new hardware to show their continued commitment. It will also allow for emulators to run the OS and allow people without hardware to give it a go. Would anyone have given linux a go if it wasn't free? I know for one I wouldn't have.

My last point. Surely the whole point of this ROOL is to release enough source to allow a free copy of the OS to be built or else there is actually no point to this at all and we are suggesting a way this can be used to the markets advantage and let people actually see and experience the OS - If people don't see it working, get a chance to use it where else will customers come from?

Rather than dismiss us quickly for suggesting this tell us why we are wrong and suggest alternative ways to get new customers into the market (yes if it gets used in embedded devices developers may buy castles machines but I doubt it will keep the desktop market alive on its own)...

Thanks

John

mrmac on 15/01/07 4:02PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

I really cannot see this happening. When the Shared Source Initative is fully up and running, people "possibly if they havent used RISC OS for a long time but still have a RiscPC in storage" will keep their RiscPC in storage. This is the sort of person who has moved onto either Linux, Mac OS or even Windows. As I see it working on developing RISC OS under the SSI will already have upgraded to at least an A9.

JWCR on 15/01/07 4:05PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

If it's really cheap then the RiscPC might get dragged out of storage out of curiosity and nostalgia. If that's done then it needs to be good enough to convince people not to put it back again, people who are now used to much faster hardware.

SimonC on 15/01/07 4:10PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

SimonC's point is my thoughts exactly. I need MS compatability so I have a PC at work with windows.

I have a PC at home with Windows (free to me, legally) and dualboot with Xandros Linux; I paid $80 for this, so if the OS is free (linux) some still pay for the benefits (xandros over the lovely Vectorlinux). I have an IBM (a good one) laptop with XandrosLinux as well. I have VA5000 and thought of upgrading to VRPCajust or whatever it is called these days, however, I wont do it because it is locked into one machine. If the OS was pennies and Virtual Acorn could offer something that I could run on 3-4 machines for less than £100 then I woudl be back (and buying software).

The platform IMHO does need new features, it needs more up to date software. Developers will not do this if they cant get a reasonable return. They wont get a reasonable return if the market is too small for reasonable numbers to buy their software. So the one way for the market to expand is to offer the OS for little so people can buy VA in reasonable numbers for their machines; or one copy cheap enough for a RISC OS virgin to put on one machine.

Incidentally it is MHO that for a RISC OS non-user VA is too expensive to tempt the masses. THis does not mean that VA is not good, just my opinion.

I did look at a RO4 RiscPC on ebay yesterday but it went for £156+ postage..... too expensive.

Anyway a cheap RISC OS could expand the market, otherwise it is dwindling. Which is a shame.

Cheers Bob

nijinsky on 15/01/07 4:28PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

highlandcattle wrote on 14/1/07 at 7:50pm:

"You are not allowed to release your contribution under GPL if you used source taken from the ROOL initiative, then you would have to release it under castles licence. If our code is completly new and has nothing to do with the sources from castle you can release it anyway you want"

I was really talking about the other way round. Imagine if I wrote something useful for RISC OS and wanted to contribute it to the RISC OS Open project. I would have to license it under a compatible license (probably not the GPL in this case), and that would reduce the number of rights users have if they receive the software as part of RISC OS Open.

Of course, if the code is entirely mine, I could also release it under the GPL, but RISC OS Open users wouldn't necessarily be able to take advantage of any improvements that are contributed to the code under a GPL license. Contributors would also have to dual license their contributions. Some may want to, others may not.

davidb on 15/01/07 4:41PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

If I'm not mistaking, Castle got their RISC OS sources from Pace. It has been reported that Pace made a version of RISC OS 4 too, which runs on a Risc PC - see [link]

Castle said they've taken over everything from Pace, including Arthur, billions of discs etc. If ROOL were to (eventually) release all the sources Castle has got, would that also include this 'unofficial' build of RISC OS 4 for Risc PC's? Probably not, but if RISC OS 5 was built from this version of RISC OS 4, perhaps it's not such an unrealistic idea that RISC OS 5 could be adapted or built to run on RiscPC / A7000 class machines, either as 26-bit or 32-bit OS. Why anyone would want to do that, I leave in the middle. OK, I admit... I'd want to

hEgelia on 15/01/07 4:54PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

IMHO it would be better to be 32bit or we loose any benefit for developers only having to think about 1 version of the OS on multiple hardware...

John

mrmac on 15/01/07 5:51PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

hEgelia: Pete Wild said that Castle had got "lock, stock and barrel" at the telephone press conference and, at the ROL meeting, that they had a "box full of discs". What he didn't mention was the important thing: the Intellectual Property Rights. I've got lots of discs - but only a small proportion contain items to which I also have the IPR. Before you get excited you need to check who has the IPR on what you desire and whether that IPR covers what you want to do with the software.

jc on 15/01/07 8:47PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

John Cartmell wrote > "What he didn't mention was the important thing: the Intellectual Property Rights. I've got lots of discs - but only a small proportion contain items to which I also have the IPR."

Let's see Castle bought something off Pace which allowed them to (a). Produce a machine (b). Update the OS (c). Upgrade the Acorn C/C++ tools (d) Allow them to (in conjunction with ROOL) release source to RO 5. That pretty much sounds like they have the IPR.

AMS on 16/01/07 02:14AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

In reply to AMS:

No, it means they have the IPR to particular components. It doesn't mean they have the IPR to everything! (note: I'm not saying they don't have the IPR, I don't know one way or another, but your examples don't automatically prove they have the IPR to *everything*.)

With regards ROOL/Caslte - I think its still too early to be speculating on what may, or may not, happen until we've seen the *exact* wording of the licence.

Col1 on 16/01/07 08:10AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

take care john.. speculate maybe, BUT only pronounce when you REALLY KNOW

jb on 16/01/07 08:28AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

I would call it more what we think will help RISC OS which calls for a certain amount of speculation....

But then if everyone kept quiet it would be just as bad... I am sure Castle have had thoughts along the lines of what we are thinking (wether they think it's a good thing or not & whether they are actually able to or not are totally diffrent things).

I just can't see any other way to actually bring some people back and grow the market although I am always very happy to be proved wrong. I also can't see anyone else voicing any other ideas that are aimed at directly encouraging people to try RISC OS.

Don't get me wrong I don't find this unhelpfull speculation. I am just putting some ideas in black and white for other people to digest and discuss and contribute to in a place where I assume a company like Castle would probablly see the discusion.

I see this as a slightly diffrent thing to just speculating for speculations sake.

John

mrmac on 16/01/07 09:34AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

in reply to jb: I would have thought that you should also be taking care. Don't forget that some of us don't need to speculate...

VirtualAcorn on 16/01/07 10:02AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

aaron: meaning?

jb on 16/01/07 10:06AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

In reply to Aaron:

In the future do you exect we will see an RO5(ROOL version) version of Virtual Acorn?

Or is that simply not an option?

sa110 on 16/01/07 10:08AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

John Ballance: I am not speculating - though most others here are. I'm simply pointing out what is important and what has been missed by others. Ownership of a CD - or a box of CDs - means nothing more than a probable right to use in the privacy of your own home.

jc on 16/01/07 10:34AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

J C

Surely you are currently speculating that we are wrong???

mrmac on 16/01/07 10:39AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

jc:

"I am not speculating" -- funny, it looks very much like speculation that Castle don't own the necessary IPR. Your point about boxes of CDs is only even slightly releveant *if* Castle *don't* have the IPR, so it only becomes an issue if you start to speculate about that.

stevef on 16/01/07 12:22AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

huum - is it me or did the post I just write come up as (nt) ?

polas on 16/01/07 2:57PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

g0tai, sort it out

flibble on 16/01/07 3:29PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

in reply to jb: As you are well aware, I know exactly the terms under which Castle purchased RISC OS Technology from Pace, as I was provided with a copy of these terms. As, I am sure, were other licensees.

VirtualAcorn on 16/01/07 5:11PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

If you lot don't behave, I'll take your computers away and send you too your room without any supper.

flibble on 16/01/07 6:04PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Now I remember why I left RISC OS. I can now read all this and not get depressed

moss on 16/01/07 6:10PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

@Aaron: Is there a way that other curious parties can see this information? Or would that break a confidentiality agreement of some sort?

killermike on 16/01/07 7:05PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

aaron: wearing which hat I wonder?

jb on 16/01/07 11:27PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Best way to put this thing to bed is to get the contract finalised and the source "out there". If people wish to use it they'll be bound by the contract it's released with. John Cartmell can merrily speculate about what is IPR and what is a CD until the cows come home. I am pretty sure that if legal bods have given the contract a good close examination and give Castle/ROOL the nod to release then the IPR issue is settled.

Companies don't get to release stuff like this unless they're legally advised they're on sound footing.

AMS on 17/01/07 02:49AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

All your (nt) belong to us.

rjek on 18/01/07 4:43PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Wow, seems that my entry didn't quite get through... so I try again:

in reply to fibble: "If you lot don't behave, I'll take your computers away and send you too your room without any supper."

Please do give us a CD in that case since I'm pretty sure that as jc pointed out we'd then be in the right place to use it...

hzn on 18/01/07 6:40PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Why posts are sometimes lost, and the forum code posts 'nt' (because it loses the content of the comment, aiui) is a bit of a mystery at the moment. I've tweaked the forum a bit to see if that helps matters. If not, it might be possible to switch to using GET instead of POST for forum posts, which cured the fault with the awards nomination system.

diomus on 18/01/07 9:05PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Please login before posting a comment. Use the form on the right to do so or create a free account.

Search the archives

Today's featured article

Archive magazine reviewed
A media watch special

10 comments, latest by diomus on 27/10/07 12:01PM. Published: 23 Oct 2007

Random article

Wakefield 2002 communication
Telewest exhibits (updated) RISCOS Ltd. too

13 comments, latest by on 27/4/02 11:42AM. Published: 18 Apr 2002

Useful links

News and media:
Iconbar • MyRISCOS • ArcSite • RISCOScode • ANS • C.S.A.Announce • Archive • Qercus • RiscWorld • Drag'n'Drop • GAG-News

Top developers:
RISCOS Ltd • RISC OS Open • MW Software • R-Comp • Advantage Six • VirtualAcorn

Dealers:
CJE Micros • APDL • Castle • a4 • X-Ample • Liquid Silicon • Webmonster

Usergroups:
WROCC • RONE • NKACC • IRUG • SASAUG • ROUGOL • RONWUG • MUG • WAUG • GAG • RISCOS.be

Useful:
RISCOS.org.uk • RISCOS.org • RISCOS.info • Filebase • Chris Why's Acorn/RISC OS collection • NetSurf

Non-RISC OS:
The Register • The Inquirer • Apple Insider • BBC News • Sky News • Google News • xkcd • diodesign

© 1999-2009 The Drobe Team. Some rights reserved, click here for more information
Powered by MiniDrobeCMS, based on J4U | Statistics
"Drobe is the most frequently updated and has the most content, but apparently they aren't interested in 'special offers'"
Page generated in 0.3786 seconds.