It is interesting that CTL is one of the companies that ROL state they have sub-licenced RO4 to. Perhaps that licence is what ROL are referring to. That licence could place restrictions on CTL that they feel they might no longer be bound by, since CTL now have the head licence. For example, not being permitted to sell the OS in a different form to that supplied by ROL. ROL might consider that CTL have breached the terms of that licence by developing and selling RO5.