2. What have ROL apparently done wrong?
Broken terms of their agreement
3. Why did it take 12 months for CTL to make a decision on withdrawing their licence?
Because they wanted to give them a chance
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?
To abide by said contract
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?
Ask the shareholders
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?
I would think the problem with VA is the not ARM thing. Either that or Castle are just making everyone stop because of ROL
10. Who actually owns the copyright to the changes to RO4, and the extensions in Select?
Everything after 4 years: ROL, so from 2003 onwards
11. Do the extensions in Select count as changes to the core OS?
Some would, the core OS changes.
12. Were CTL's demands reasonable and legitimate as far as ROL were concerned?
Probably not, because ROL didn't comply
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?
Because if they complied their main form of income would likely vanish (VRPC)