sa110>"You are forgetting that ROL itself is not about putting their branch onto other hardware"
That's them limiting themselves. Acorn isn't around to say "Ahem you're not suppose to do that".
I feel (sadly) that as ROL never had (and I suspect never will) have any in house hardware development skillset and that therefore they won't be in a position to port to new hardware anytime soon.
That leaves *emulation*, which is probably the "path of least resistance" that ROL would follow - and continued support for "fossilware" (i.e., RISC PC)
The contrast with RO5 is an interesting one - you could argue that given that Pace (and then later CTL) because they developed hardware better understood the needs of the OS/Hardware and ultimately produced code that was *easier* to port to new hardware (the BeagleBoard port being an effective proof of this).
I suspect ROL will cater for a proportion of RISC OS users - but will not make meaningful inroads onto new hardware or onto new platforms.
If they wished to do this they'd need to think radically - perhaps even licensing parts (or all) of RO5 from Castle on a commercial basis and modifying RO6/Select to work with it. Or alternatively opening their OS so that similar developments to what is happening on the ROOL branch would occur... the problem is that that would deprive ROL of some income and would represent a risk.
ROL have had some success - but to expand from where they are would require different thinking and possibly doing what for them in the past would appear unthinkable (mind you they did this once before when they embraced Windows and Emulation - so perhaps they make an equivalent leap again - who knows).