1. Where's ROL's comment on this?
2. What have ROL apparently done wrong?
3. Why did it take 12 months for CTL to make a decision on withdrawing their licence?
4. Have ROL agreed to the withdrawal?
5. Why are CTL delaying a possible source of income until ROL fulfil their legal obligations?
6. What are these legal obligations?
7. Will CTL licence ROL to third parties on the same terms as ROL did?
8. What do the discussions CTL are having with ROL's shareholders about finding a way to offer RO4 and Select to users actually involve?
9. If CTL were to consider selling RO4 to VA distributers as non-desktop use, because you could embed a Windows box, what was to stop people embedding RiscStations or RiscPCs?
10. Who actually owns the copyright to the changes to RO4, and the extensions in Select?
11. Do the extensions in Select count as changes to the core OS?
12. Where CTL's demands reasonable and legitimate as far as ROL were concerned?
13. Why did ROL refuse CTL's demands if they thought they were reasonable, and as such their only form of income would likely vanish?
I'd personaly like to hear responses to those questions from both sides. There's no sense what-so-ever in forming opinions until you've heard both sides, certainly. You wouldn't sentence somebody having only heard the prosecution's arguments. I'd also like to make it clear that I'm on neither ROL's or CTL's side. (I don't even use RISC OS anymore, although I'd like to use VA-RPC, that option doesn't appear open anymore, and it certianly looks like it's not going to be re-opened for a long time yet.)
As I said earlier, because we don't have all the facts, it's perfectly possible that CTL are completely right. But so many of the important facts appear missing, that it smells nasty.