Drobe :: The archives
About Drobe | Contact | RSS | Twitter | Tech docs | Downloads | BBC Micro

RISCOS Ltd's head licence with E14 leaked

Published: 20th Dec 2008, 14:02:23 | Permalink | Printable

A partial scanned copy of what appears to be the original 1999 licence between ROL and E14 - the company formed from the break-up of Acorn that kept the RISC OS technology - has been anonymously leaked to several RISC OS magazines and websites this afternoon. The disclosure, which arrived by email from a gmail account, is believed to have come about following the recently revived licensing dispute between ROL and Castle.

Click here to visit this news quickie

Previous: Nominations open for the Drobe Awards 2008
Next: The leaked ROL licence is the dullest thing you will ever read

Discussion

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

This could be an interesting document to read(assuming it is something us mere mortals can comprehend!). But even if this does appear on the web either in full or partially, people also have to remember that adjustments to the scope of ROL's market were (I believe) extended by Pace. Also nobody knows if other extensions had also been granted by Pace. Therefore this document alone may not really prove anything other than an interesting read of what was granted to RISCOS Ltd at the time of it's signing.

 is a RISC OS Usersa110 on 20/12/08 2:28PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

This dispute is descending into farce: a public forum is the last place for complex legal agreements - which are apparently disputed - to be usefully aired. What is to be accomplished here? Are we to take a vote at the end on who is in the right? Drobe should give serious consideration whether it is proper, and in the interest of the platform, to reveal the E14 agreement. Frankly, unless the parties involved can sort this out between themselves, there is nothing to be gained by further discussion here IMHO.

 is a RISC OS Userbucksboy on 20/12/08 5:26PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

bucksboy: Nothing further to be gained? What about the jollyment of it all? I've not had so much fun in years.

 is a RISC OS Userrjek on 20/12/08 7:01PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

anonymously leaked to several RISC OS magazines and websites

How 1990s! People use wikileaks for this sort of stuff these days.

 is a RISC OS Userguestx on 20/12/08 7:14PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

But to post to wikileaks you first have to port Tor to RISC OS :-)

 is a RISC OS Usercaliston2 on 20/12/08 10:25PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

I've heard there are other operating systems.

Their GUIs just haven't caught up yet.

 is a RISC OS UserStoppers on 20/12/08 11:27PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Of course it requires both sides to leak their highly selective and/or doctored versions of various contracts, so we can make an judgement based on bad grammar, obvious spelling mistakes and which bits appear to be written in crayon.

 is a RISC OS Userdruck on 21/12/08 1:19AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

The list of recipients makes interesting reading. Why was the e-mail also sent to me? I already have the entire document, so why send me a copy of part of it?

I can only think of one reason. That reason would be so that I could confirm that it's genuine.

Having printed out the 8 TIFF files this morning and compared the text to my copy I can say that the text itself is identical.

P.S. I should point out that David Ruck's crayon doesn't appear on any documents. Which is hardly suprising as he and his crayon have never been involved in any meetings, or indeed have any knowledge of any of the discussions or documents resulting from such discusions.

 is a RISC OS UserVirtualAcorn on 21/12/08 12:52PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Aaron, you should be a lot more concerned about your own words and actions, rather than get all worked up by what you think I don't know.

 is a RISC OS Userdruck on 22/12/08 1:05PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

None of it will do much beyond damage the market - its one of those classic Internet 'fires' which just seems to gain a life of its own and will destroy everything including ROL and ROOL :-(

Why not focus on getting ROLs site updated to 'sell your version' and explain why RISCOS 6 is 'better' than RISCOS 5 and so worth paying for.... Get the articles out there encouraging people to try RISCOS for a fiver and rediscover it...

 is a RISC OS Usermarkee174 on 21/12/08 8:54PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

In answer to bucksboy of 2 days ago, you can vote for "Who Owns RISC OS?" in a poll running on Acorn.misc. This is the poll that Drobe dare not run.

 is a RISC OS UserDaveLane on 22/12/08 5:27PM
[ 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

  • Review: A9home v. Koolu
    Clash of the tiniest
     31 comments, latest by polas on 18/10/07 6:03PM. Published: 15 Oct 2007

  • Random article

  • Viewfinder support re-enabled
    Windfall changes support policy. Third time lucky.
     4 comments, latest by Snig on 19/11/02 9:15PM. Published: 17 Nov 2002

  • Useful links

    News and media:
    IconbarMyRISCOSArcSiteRISCOScodeANSC.S.A.AnnounceArchiveQercusRiscWorldDrag'n'DropGAG-News

    Top developers:
    RISCOS LtdRISC OS OpenMW SoftwareR-CompAdvantage SixVirtualAcorn

    Dealers:
    CJE MicrosAPDLCastlea4X-AmpleLiquid SiliconWebmonster

    Usergroups:
    WROCCRONENKACCIRUGSASAUGROUGOLRONWUGMUGWAUGGAGRISCOS.be

    Useful:
    RISCOS.org.ukRISCOS.orgRISCOS.infoFilebaseChris Why's Acorn/RISC OS collectionNetSurf

    Non-RISC OS:
    The RegisterThe InquirerApple InsiderBBC NewsSky NewsGoogle Newsxkcddiodesign


    © 1999-2009 The Drobe Team. Some rights reserved, click here for more information
    Powered by MiniDrobeCMS, based on J4U | Statistics
    "As their reports are full of errors, [omissions] and mis-reporting - so readers you have been warned... unfortunately Drobe articles cannot be taken at face value"
    Page generated in 0.1012 seconds.