Apologies for the delay in replying to a couple of the posts on here.
Firstly I am sadened that RISCOS Open declined RISCOS Ltd's offer to fully disclose all of the paperwork (including the ROL/E14 agreement). In my opinion this would have settled the matter once and for all.
With regard to Peter Wild's latest posting I think perhaps that it's worth me injecting some facts. Firstly it was Peter Wild himself who first noticed problems with the new agreement (I have copies of the e-mails here). As a result of the numerous "accidental problems" that had appeared RISCOS Ltd invoked the "binding dispute" clause to sort them out. Castle refused to abide by the terms of the agreement, therefore in law it was scrapped as it was deemed to have been un-acceptable and unworkable for both parties.
I should also point out that Peter Wild was not present during any of the discussions on the day.
With regard to the original, and still current, agreement: Castle had no rights to terminate it. The sight of Jack and John scurrying out of the EGM after being presented with the Pace side letter which gave additional rights to RISCOS Ltd was proof enough of Castle Technology Limited's mistakes.
I am glad to see that Peter has confirmed that under clause 3.6 of the ROL/E14 agreement code was only supplied back under licence and was never owned by E14, Pace or indeed Castle Technology Ltd.
RISCOS Ltd acted entirely properly in licencing RISCOS for use in emulators. The side letter from Anthony Dixon (8th Jul 1999) specifically pre-approved RISCOS licences for items other than thin clients and set top boxes. This is the same letter that was presented to Jack and John at the EGM.
In your closing paragrpahs you seem to have things somewhat backward. RISCOS Ltd was trying to form closer ties with ROOL. With regard to licencing RISC OS. Only RISCOS Ltd has the right to licence RISC OS for desktop computers etc.
The right to licence RISC OS for thin clients and set top boxes was retained by Pace on the "purchase of the RISC OS technology". I draw your attention to the following points from this agreement:
"The sale of the Technology is subject to and with the benefit of all existing licencess of the Technology"
"Buyer shall grant to Pace a perpetual irrevocable worldwide royalty free licence with the right to grant sub-licences (which shall be binding on any successors in title of Buyer)."
"Buyer will undertake not to create, nor grant licences to other 3rd parties in respect of activities which compete with the Pace business."
Buyer of course, was Castle Technology Ltd. As such it can be plainly seen that:
RISCOS Ltd maintained it's rights to licence RISC OS into all markets except thin clients and set top boxes. This right was acknowledged by Castle Technology Ltd at the time.
Pace maintained its rights to licence RISC OS for thin clients an set top boxes.
Like you I have no wish to have this arguement. My preferred approach was to sort things out behind the scenes. For RISCOS Ltd and RISCOS Open Ltd to work together, to co-operate. Sadly this looks increasingly unlikely due to the actions of a few very very stupid people. People who have no real need of RISC OS and thrive on conflict.