AMS: That's a lot of speculation, with the quite major assumption that ROL didn't ask for (and receive) permission from Pace to make those developments.
How do you explain why Pace never cancelled the licence, if ROL were in such flagrent breah of contract? Also, how Iyonix didn't impinge on ROL's target market if Castle didn't buy the head licence from Pace until after the Iyonix had come out?
A letter from RISCOS Ltd. To clear up any recent confusion and to set the record straight about the futureof RISC OS, Paul Middleton writes.. 13 comments, latest by on 21/9/01 1:16PM. Published: 18 Sep 2001