If one of the requirements for ROL to meet was to submit those early changes to the head licence owner - the intent would presumably be that they would grant the head licence holder rights to use them. (Whether or not those changes were used is another matter). If not then what is point of that condition in the licence?
Now this article suggests they are trying to essentially take those submissions back - does that mean ROL could be breaching the conditions they had to meet to get their new found rights? It makes no sense- can someone show this licence so we users know where we stand?
I had strong hopes that with development moving to ROOL a new level of cooperation between ROL and ROOL would happen. Seems not.
Please login before posting a comment. Use the form on the right to do so or create a free account.
Search the archives
Today's featured article
RISC OS artist wows public with digital artwork A RISC OS-using artist has described exhibiting his digitally-created work in a public gallery as a "rewarding experience". Richard Ashbery, who used ArtWorks and Photodesk to create his images, showed off patterns and colourful illustrations to punters, who told him his work made a change from the oils and watercolour masterpieces usually exhibited. 1 comment, latest by socris on 18/11/08 4:23PM. Published: 17 Nov 2008