'If they want to call it open source, whether it follows the accepted definition or not, noone can stop them.'
I wouldn't be so sure about that (thinking trades description law here),"
I can't see how that can be applied without a universal consensus on the meaning of the word 'open'.
Besides, we don't know what the licence may be officially called. I think it's premature to do the whole leaping down Castle's throat thing.
" but even if they could I don't think you have any conception as to how hostile the reaction of the real Open Source community would be if anyone were to try that."
I could see that being beneficial to RISC OS. It's not as if it is exactly high-profile. The more heat generated, the more interest in RISC OS could be garnered or regained. Not everyone has their head up their arse over this issue. Individuals have been producing RISC OS enhancements for no financial benefit for donkeys' years. With this initiative it would get easier.
It just seems bizarre to me that a) Castle can be criticised by open source advocates for opening up RISC OS more than it is now, and b) there are people who think they are in a position to dictate the terms of a licence to the owner of the IPR.
"'If they own the IPR to the OS, it's theirs to license as they see fit.'
True, but if they want their project to be attractive to Open Source developers then they do not have that freedom."
If you have been following the discussion so far, a major part of the strategy seemed to me to be to make the OS more attractive to STB vendors. A few enthusiasts tweaking the OS as well is a bonus.
" The OSD is the standard against which they will be judged, and I for one would be very reluctant to work on anything which did not meet that standard."
A shame, but who knows what will happen. Maybe the licensing will be relaxed as time goes on. I don't think this is the time to be disparaging.
"A far better strategy would be to release selected parts of the OS (the bits that need work) under a truly free licence, and leave the remainder proprietary."
I can't see where the doom and gloom comes from. To me it just seems to be a case of some people crying "what's in it for me?". But transferal of IPR to Castle can only apply to derivative works. If you write a completely separate and self-contained module from scratch, or maybe even a kernal replacement, the situation must remain the same as now. Opening up RISC OS, even in the manner that has been discussed, allows possibilities for adding hooks into existing OS components to interface with differently licensed self-contained code or even new commercial products.
LAME and its origins spring to mind.
Besides, AIUI the parts of RISC OS that need the most work are ones which could do with a from-the-ground-up rewrite.