nunfetishist
16/6/04 6:13PM |
<fx: zero surprise>
At least this release is slightly more nicely worded, with less name calling than CTL's. |
ninja
16/6/04 6:18PM |
Well, I'm surprised. I didn't expect PM to make a public statement so soon, although it doesn't contain anything I didn't expect it to. I agree with Rob though - I did expect this to contain a lot of petty squabbling. |
Jaffa
16/6/04 6:19PM |
Although the "Castle's ongoing disputed use of RISC OS" is a bit of surprise. I thought that had been settled once and for all with the Pace buyout? |
ninja
16/6/04 6:22PM |
Nah, I think the dispute only arose after the buyout, and though it had gone quiet I don't recall it ever getting resolved. I can't say I understand ROL's point on this one though, unless they reckon their sublicense gives them exclusive right to the desktop market. |
SparkY
16/6/04 6:23PM |
No new news although I'm surprised that ROL took the opportunity to again attack RISC OS on Iyonix. Interesting to see that even Paul can't remember if it's RISCOS Ltd or RISCOS Ltd though  |
JWCR
16/6/04 6:24PM |
So, ROL still think that Castle are in the wrong for releasing RISC OS 5 on the Iyonix. What ongoing dispute, Castle own the Operating System, end of story. |
GeoffP
16/6/04 6:25PM |
I suppose this has been coming to a head for sometime, and became inevitable when Castle bought the licence from Pace. My own feeling, and it hasn't changed since Castle brought out Version 5, is that RISCOS Ltd will always struggle against a company that has its own hardware and software, plus the ability to still attract income from the legacy market.
Since Castle have decided to go their own way (thinking also of USB), I decided to stay with our RiscPCs (4) and use VA on our HP laptop. We are all very happy in this house, and are also happy with RISCOS Ltd, Simtec, STD, etc, who are still supporting us admirably. It is unfortunate that they may be affected by this fall out, and I for one think even less of Castle than I did before.
Geoff Potter |
JGZimmerle
16/6/04 6:27PM |
Why would it be settled by the buyout? IIRC the original agreement also prohibited Element 14 and later Pace from re-entering the RISC OS desktop market without paying RISCOS Ltd. |
SparkY
16/6/04 6:28PM |
In reply to GeoffP:
The USB arguement has been done to the death and their are valid reasons on both sides, although there's no doubt that situation is a shame. I see nothing in your post to explain why you think badly of Castle, except that Castle have a stronger position in the market than ROL - this is business, not a charity. |
martin
16/6/04 6:28PM |
This is a remarkably well worded statement that says all the right things. I'm impressed that ROL are fighting there corner so well.
The whole situation is depressingly like a divorce between two people who, individually, are thoroughly nice but just can't live with each other any more. Alas, we, the children are the ones suffering unfairly. (Isn't it always the way). One suspects that what they are actually squabbling over is, dare I say it, trivial - (wouldn't we all like to know what exactly ?) - as with all bust ups in relationships.
I'm saddened that this is starting to look like something that is going to be painful and drawn out.
If this isn't a cut and dried legal case then both parties and their lawyers need to thrash this out around a table. The last thing we need is a long and drawn out legal dispute. |
markee174
16/6/04 6:28PM |
"Since Castle have decided to go their own way (thinking also of USB)"
Didn't Castle adopt the USB enhancements added by Pace into the RISC OS core while STD "went their own way"....? |
Mac9
16/6/04 6:32PM |
Let's hope things are sorted out quickly and everyone is a winner! RISCOS Ltd has done well post Acorn. |
flypig
16/6/04 6:36PM |
Yeah, I think RISCOS Ltd and Castle have both done well with the products they've released.
I hope that this situation is resolved amicably. |
sa110
16/6/04 6:42PM |
Whilst not directly the same, it sounds to me like both Castle and ROL have been taken a page out of the pages of SCO, IBM and Novells book and decided to have a go themselves |
ninja
16/6/04 6:59PM |
Maybe the absence of mud-flinging in this press release is an indicator that discussions could take place and the issues resolved cleanly. Who knows?
Really though, we oughtn't speculate. As Rob has been saying for a few hours now, we really need more info. And it's not people like me that have been affected - it's people like Stuart and Aaron that are caught in the crossfire while trying to make a decent fist of a tricky situation. |
mripley
16/6/04 7:30PM |
In reply to JWCR
Prior to Castle owning RISCOS only
RISCOS Ltd had exclusive access to the
source code. Therefore if RO5 was
developed before they bought RISCOS
they are in breach of licensing. Unless
of course RO5 was developed without
any reference to the original source
code ( not !!!)
Things are not as clear as they may
seem so put your pro CTL bias to the
side and allow the legalities to sort
themselves out.
regards,
Malcolm
|
mavhc
16/6/04 8:28PM |
and Pace, your comment makes little sense. |
russt
16/6/04 8:43PM |
What shocks me most in these situations is both company's lack of website updates. The web is an instant medium FFS, they should both have these statements immediately available to customers. |
SparkY
16/6/04 8:47PM |
ruust:
Castle's statement is on the Iyonix site in the news section. |
quatermass
16/6/04 9:14PM |
Maybe ROL have something?
Didn't I read a posting by someone on Drobe which talked about a rumour of ex-Pace ppl giving Pace source code to Castle illegally?
|
mavhc
16/6/04 9:47PM |
Well obviously they both think they have something, and they probably both do, the lawyers who design contracts make them obscure and open to interpretation so that they can make more money defending them when the time comes. It's like selling light blubs that don't last forever.
Castle say they own ROS, ROL say they don't, money isn't exchanged as excepted by one party.
If ROL thought Castle owned ROS why would they mention Pace?
I like how ROL talk about owners of ROS being E14 and Pace, and then the sub licences being Castle. Sneaky.
"Castle's ongoing disputed use of RISC OS in the Iyonix PC" and "benefit of all the companies in the RISC OS community (not just one)" are good too. |
TonyStill
16/6/04 10:00PM |
In reply to Quatermass:
I think it's clear that RO 5 is the PACE (in-house) version of RO, separately licensed to CTL by PACE. Rumours of source code being illegally gained are, IMHO, just silly. Every Iyonix comes with (came with?) a piece of paper explaining PACE's ownership of the IPR - surely PACE would not have tolerated that if it wasn't true?
What is less clear is whether PACE had the right to license it as ROL may have previously been granted an exclusive desktop licence (including the right to sub-license to others). ROL might justifiably believe it was owed some royalties somewhere along the line.
This latter is further complicated by the fact that the PACE and CTL rights are now all with CTL. It's a soap-opera this one, let's just hope the script writers have a happy ending in mind  |
dgs (-0.1)
16/6/04 10:13PM |
In reply to mavhc:
"Castle say they own ROS, ROL say they don't"
Where did ROL say that Castle don't own RISC OS? ROL have said that ROL has abided by all conditions of the head license, and that Castle's use of RISC OS in the Iyonix is "disputed". They nowhere say that Castle don't own RISC OS, or the head license. (This is just yet another red herring put about by people who don't know what they're talking about).
On a separate matter, contrary to what the above Drobe article currently says (it may change later), several RISCOS Ltd shareholders have already stated their views on Drobe.
dgs |
mikeg
16/6/04 10:25PM |
It's amazing how quickly ROL have become the good guys and Castle the nasty big corporate. I can see the merits of both sides, TBH.
ROL have, obviously, spent a lot of time evolving RISC OS to the current Adjust flavour. Castle ditto to RO5. Adjust, though, just marks time on rapidly tiring hardware (Omega excepted, possibly), whereas RO5 has broken the link back to Acorn corporate stupidities of a decade and a half ago.
I, for one, would like to see the two prongs of the fork merge again. If it takes Castle to force the merger, then so be it.
Also, if Castle's Merlin project leads to an open evolution of the OS, rather than a secret and secretive one, a small round of applause is necessary.
(There does seem to be a myth developing that Paul Middleton singlehandedly rescued RISC OS, though, which doesn't gel with my memory of events at the time.) |
piemmm
16/6/04 10:44PM |
Hopefully not another black <insert favourite day_of_week> |
nunfetishist
16/6/04 10:53PM |
I don't see much evidence of CTL developing RO5 at all. From what I can see and have been told, it's pretty much identical to what Pace gave them. |
TonyStill
16/6/04 11:02PM |
Nunfetishist:
"don't see much evidence of CTL developing RO5"
CTL have presumably done all the HAL work for Iyonix, including the graphics drivers for the nVIDIA. They've also released 6 (free) ROM upgrades and 33 disc upgrades including both bug-fixes and new features (admittedly small ones). Also, USB compatibility is improving apace.
But apart from that, not much yet, no |
dgs (-0.1)
16/6/04 11:06PM |
In reply to mikeg:
A dangerously Machiavellian viewpoint
dgs |
egel
16/6/04 11:29PM |
Nunfetishist:
But why and when did Pace develop 32-bit RISCOS ? Or had Acorn / E14 already done some 32-bit RISCOS work? And why didn't they gave it to ROL? |
nunfetishist
16/6/04 11:34PM |
In reply to TonyStill:
I'm told that Pace did the HAL work - and the whole point of HALs is that it makes it trivial to port to new platforms. Hardly hard work. Bug fixes should be expected - they're not often difficult. I myself have fixed bugs in the FileCore in RO3.8 by just using Zap and a disassembly. Hardly effort. They've certainly not put anywhere near as much time into it as ROL have, even if you don't think ROL's additions are all that useful. (I certainly don't -- which is why I never bought Select.)
In reply to egel:
Pace developed a 32bit OS for their business. If you ever cared to visit them on one of their numerous open days, you'd have seen RISC OS running on a purely 32bit CPU, running TechWriter and AMPlayer. |
Walks
16/6/04 11:37PM |
Someone mentioned in a previous comment (I think on the last article) that Pace owned the Intellectual Property rights and Castle owned the technology.
Working in academia and with IP's, one thing that I want to clarify is that IP's and technology do not have to be the same thing. IP's are commonly novel ideas or notions, whereas the technology may be just an implementation of the IP.
For example, WIMP maybe the IP of a company, but other companies may have implemented it in their technology (for example Windows, Mac OS, RISC OS, etc). When it comes to licensing, therefore, the issue is whether it is a licence of the IP or a licence of an existing implementation of the IP (technology).
To join in the speculation: when I read the comment that Castle had bought the RISC OS technology, but not the IP, my gut reaction was that this meant they had bought the code off Pace.
RISC OS Ltd may believe, however, that their licence applies to the IP and not this code (especially if this code is a from a different development branch of the OS).
James |
| Use the forum for more comments on this article |
