David Ruck wrote>"If there is the opportunity to take RISC OS forward in ways which wont happen without open access to the source, and all we can do is bitch about the type of licence, then its time to walk away."
I very much agree with this. I think it is also significant that many of the people critical of the license choice would be fans of Linux. [I'd qualify that by saying there is *nothing* wrong with this - and Linux is a fine Operating system]. The problem is we're discussing the survival of *RISC OS*, last time I checked Linux wasn't on the endangered species list...
That being the case the license chosen should (a). Bolster RISC OS (b). Not aid the competition (c). Protect and where possible enhance the existing RISC OS hardware and software manufacturers. I don't believe this is best acchieved by a GPL style license. The license used, I would argue, should prevent re-use of RISC OS source in non-RISC OS operating systems (to prevent "cherry picking") and should prevent use of RISC OS under emulation/translation on other platforms. The commercial aspects of the license are Castle's business, its *their* software so ultimately it's their choice as to what they do with it - surely ?
And no Julian simply having an ARM on your computer's southbridge doesn't mean it's "ok" to develope and run RISC OS on an x86 (besides not all Southbridge have ARM's and most PC owners wouldn't be able to tell so could not be certain they'd complied with the license). The license therefore should (IMHO) explicitly state that RISC OS can only be used by a *native* ARM processor and that the emulation of or translation of ARMCode to x86 or other binary for execution on a non-native processor is expressly forbidden.