RISC OS Open licence in hands of lawyers - RISC OS News, Software and Information

RISC OS Open licence in hands of lawyers

Published: 14th Jan 2007, 00:38:17GMT Source: drobe.co.uk
By the Drobe news desk

Page 1 of 1

Ballance mulls Iyonix successor

The shared source licence being drawn up as part of the RISC OS Open project is in the hands of lawyers, it was revealed this week.

In a report to be published by Archive magazine, Castle are said to have spent a 'lot of money' on legal bills to make the licence watertight. The company fears loopholes may be found in their complex shared source agreement which could allow royalty free use of the source code for commercial purposes or let people avoid disclosing updates to the RISC OS blueprints.

In August last year, Castle revealed its plans to open up the source code to RISC OS 5, allowing third party programmers and firms to contribute to the development of the OS.

Magazine editor Paul Beverley has firmly backed the initiative after he met with Castle bosses Jack Lillingston and John Ballance during the week to discuss the progress of the ROOL project. RISC OS Open recently relaunched its website in preparation of the release of the first batch of RISC OS 5 source code, and is set to meet users at a meeting in London on Monday.

A source close to Archive said: "Paul got a better idea of what's going on. I think he thought they'd more or less given up and were just milking what was left of the Iyonix market and not really looking to the future, but it seems they are spending a lot of solicitor money trying to get the terms of the new open source licence as tight as possible.

"It will pull the rug from under RISCOS Ltd because they are going to make in due course enough of RISC OS available at a few pence per unit for people to build an Iyonix with it.

"And John revealed that they were still very much thinking towards a computer to follow on from the Iyonix, and also a separate very interesting project, so they are still in it for the long haul."

In an editorial leaked to drobe.co.uk ahead of publication next week, editor Paul Beverley confirmed it was Castle's intention to release as much of the RISC OS 5 source as possible to allow people, from punters to commercial outfits, to build their own computers to run it. Updates to the software have to be made public, allowing Castle to improve their source code and boost their intellectual property. According to Paul, CTL are trying to woo contracts with Far Eastern firms.

The low royalty cost per unit for commercial use of the RISC OS 5 source is expected to price RISCOS Ltd out of the market as it's believed ROL demands considerably higher royalties per copy of RISC OS 4 shipped. ROL have in the past said that open sourcing the OS will not be the single saviour of RISC OS because investment is needed to sustain useful development - the RISC OS Open team are working voluntarily in their spare time, for instance. It's also assumed that the operating system will continue along its two separate streams of development.

In his monthly column, Paul wrote: "I was entertained right royally by Messrs Lillingston and Ballance while we discussed the future of RISC OS, a future which is clearly an Open one.

"The open source licence (still with the lawyers after many months of careful drafting, but soon to be made available) under which RISC OS is made available either free or for pence per unit is not like the GPL one. Rather, as third parties improve RISC OS, they are obliged by the licence to publish details of those improvements and they then become part of RISC OS, i.e. they are then owned by Castle - i.e. it increases their pool of intellectual property.

"So Castle's aim is, above all, to ensure that RISC OS is used, and therefore improved, and therefore becomes more valuable and more effective - which is to everyone's advantage."

ROOL's Steve Revill and Castle's Jack Lillingston are due to appear before users in London on Monday night.

A ROUGOL organiser said: "Steve will be able to show how the new RISC OS Open website works, including the framework for managing the shared source project, and the bug tracking facilities. There may possibly also be a chance to look at the first batches of RISC OS source code released."

The event is set to take place from 7.45pm on January 15 at the Blue-eyed Maid, Borough High Street, London, SE1 1HR. RISC OS Open was voted top in the 'best ingenious idea' category in the Drobe 2006 awards.

Links
RISC OS Open website
Castle website
Archive magazine website - first two issues for free for new readers

This article has been linked to, or is available in the following formats:

[Printable] [Digg this] [Blog search]

simo 14/1/07 12:40PM	Seems like a lovely license for Castle, essentially they're getting free developers if any work done becomes their IP. I can't see this flying with the FOSS brigade or Castle's commercial customers, so the only developers are going to be existing RO users. No wonder they're considering an Iyonix followup, they can concentrate on the hardware and let the users write the HAL bits. I'd be tempted by an A9 with a GPL'd Select4, but in the meantime I'll buy a 399ukp MacMini and put Linux on it thanks.
bluenose (+1.0) 14/1/07 1:03PM	In Reply to Simo So you want RISCOS for free but are prepared to pay for a MiniMac and then put Linux on it? Why, the mac comes with an excellent OS. Castle should be congratulated for try some thing new and Shared sourcing the code. This way hopefully both RISCOS camps win as ROL can take bits of the Castle developments and utilise them and Castle get more commercial work outside of our small market.
JohnB (+1.0) 14/1/07 1:14PM	Not only a nice license for Castle but also for us. I think it's good that Castle are safeguarding development. I wouldn't be especially keen if we were in a position where we as RISC OS users never saw the benefits of 'outside' development. It remains to be seen how Castle's commercial customers view ROOL (I'm sure that will have been considered!) and in the meantime I'll be looking forward to the release of a successor to my Iyonix.
killermike (+1.0) 14/1/07 1:31PM	This is shaping up to be an exciting development. It could still fail due to an unworkable license or a refusal to release the most important components but if this project can deliver what it promises, this could push RISCOS forward. I'm glad that Castle are working on a restrictive license; it's a workable strategy as opposed to 'let's just give our products away'. Any commentary is purely speculative until we get a finished license and an actual release of code. I agree with JohnB that Castle's proposed strategy offers benefits for all parties involved.
jess (+1.0) 14/1/07 1:49PM	It will only pull the rug out from under ROL if the market stays at rock bottom. It seems the initiative is intended to increase the market significantly. If that happens ROL would be able to drop its prices accordingly. Select/Adjust/RO6 has advantages over RO5 which are worth paying for. There would be space for both if the market expanded. ROL's biggest danger is not adapting to the new landscape, rather than there being no place for it.
simo 14/1/07 2:02PM	In reply to bluenose, I don't want RISC OS for free , I want a free RISC OS, there's a difference (beer vs. speech). I would buy a MacMini to put Linux on because I want Apple-quality hardware that's small and cheap, I had considered getting an A9 and putting Debian ARM on it too, as it beats the Mini on size, but not price or power, the same goes for a Shuttle. The bottom line is that there may be nothing wrong with the OS, be that RISC OS or MacOSX (although I'm no longer particularly impressed with either) but if I can't do with it what I want, then what's the point? I'd prefer the hardware and a truly open OS, not half-open like Darwin/ROOL.
davidb 14/1/07 2:02PM	bluenose wrote: "So you want RISCOS for free but are prepared to pay for a MiniMac and then put Linux on it?" Actually, I assumed he was going to buy an A9, so he would be paying for the hardware in either situation. "Why, the mac comes with an excellent OS." It's also a closed OS. I don't know why simo would want to buy a Mac Mini specifically if he just wants to run Linux on it. Perhaps he'd rather pay the Apple tax than the Microsoft tax.
AW (+1.0) 14/1/07 2:18PM	Surely what is needed to sustain development is enugh units being sold. So is there enough of RISC OS 6 availabale to allow manufacturers to build cheaper computers from it? Presumably STD had to pay a substantial fee to make the A9. As things stand I'd say that even the A9, let alone the Iyonix are out of reach of the majority of people. Having said that, I think more should be made by Castle of the "legendary build quality" they used to refer to. This has given me the opportunity to continue using a RISC OS for many years and no doubt the Iyonix will still be a usable system for many, many more years when its successor is the envy of most people in the RISC OS community. To my mind, that's one of the most important parts of Acorn and RISC OS's history, the longevity.
guestx (-1.0) 14/1/07 4:52PM	Paul Beverley: "The open source licence" Cluebolt required! Not even in their most deranged moments would the Open Source Initialive approve the shared source licence suggested for RISC OS "Open". "Rather, as third parties improve RISC OS, they are obliged by the licence to publish details of those improvements and they then become part of RISC OS, i.e. they are then owned by Castle - i.e. it increases their pool of intellectual property." Do they assign their copyright to Castle? Otherwise, Castle merely have the right to privileged licensing terms under the dubious licence - they don't own those changes at all. Still, in other parts of Royston Vasey I'm sure everything that isn't shrinkwrapped or proprietary software is "PD", so Mr Beverley is clearly on the road to enlightenment, even if he has a way to go.
guestx (-1.0) 14/1/07 4:53PM	*In reply to simo:* "I would buy a MacMini to put Linux on because I want Apple-quality hardware that's small and cheap" You set your sights too low, simo. I would want better quality hardware than that.
hzn (+1.0) 14/1/07 5:47PM	*In reply to simo:* "Seems like a lovely license for Castle, essentially they're getting free developers if any work done becomes their IP. I can't see this flying with the FOSS brigade or Castle's commercial customers, so the only developers are going to be existing RO users.". I think the license idea is good since it ensures pretty much the same as GPL does: Enhancements are fed back for all the enjoy. Just think about how many gadgets use Linux despite GPL and then have to open up their source. Those gadgets are sometimes even more intersting than closed source ones since some community starts developing enhancements which then feed back to others or even come as an upgrade. And some commercial developer can always run part of the code on their gadget as an application which doesn't need to be open sourced...
hzn (+1.0) 14/1/07 6:00PM	*In reply to jess:* "It will only pull the rug out from under ROL if the market stays at rock bottom. It seems the initiative is intended to increase the market significantly. If that happens ROL would be able to drop its prices accordingly. Select/Adjust/RO6 has advantages over RO5 which are worth paying for. " I think ROL manages to pull the run out from under ROL by themselves - all they have to do is to continue to charge subscription fees without delivering within a sensible time span. But as long as there are enough users happy to spend their money in this manner, fine for ROL. Though I think that this behaviour does make sure that the number of Select subscribers does shrink as time passes by thus ROL does reduce their market all by themselves. Considering that as far as I can see Select4 aka RO6 as upgrade costs 2.5 years of subscription fees I do wonder if it is worth that much money. Please do not forget that the main part of Select4/RO6 is 32bitting of the OS and that has been paid in full by Ad6 for the A9home as PM@ROL stated over and over again and this 32bitting is no use to RiscPC owners anyhow. True Select/Adjust/RO6 has advantages over RO5 which are worth paying for ... but at a reasonable price, please.
bluenose (+1.0) 14/1/07 6:01PM	In reply to Simo and davidb If I read it correctly then you can do what you want with the ROOL/Castle sources only you can't do it for commercial gain without paying a fee per unit. Take the point about the hardware though but what ever way you wish to dress it up the "Free" bit still comes down to the fact that people do not want to pay. If you were happy with the "Free" element as in your example then you can do this under the Castle licence proposals though you are encouraged to give the code back to Castle and the community. Still being as all is not well in Linux land with the various factions then what hope do we have in RISCOS land to keep out of the endless GPL type debates.
takkaria (+1.5) 14/1/07 6:37PM	*In reply to bluenose:* What do you mean by "all is not well in Linux land with the various factions"? Regardless, the licence is not open source, that much is clear. It does seem to be that CTL want the gains of open-source without any of the associated costs, so power to them -- but I think it may put some people off.
davidb 14/1/07 7:04PM	bluenose wrote: "If you were happy with the ''Free'' element as in your example then you can do this under the Castle licence proposals though you are encouraged to give the code back to Castle and the community." Until we see the license we won't know for sure but, from the description in the article, it doesn't sound like it's the same thing at all! Do I as a contributor have the same rights as Castle? If I licensed my contribution under the GPL, could Castle legitimately use it? I suspect that the answers to both those questions are "no". The as-yet-unreleased license doesn't sound as if it's a "Free" (as in Freedom) software license at all.
jamesp (+1.1) 14/1/07 7:10PM	I welcome the move, At the very least, if gives programmers the chance to see the source and extend or fix bits of the OS instead of having to work around them. As far as the licence, the shared source one, as little as I know, seems a good compromise. On the off chance that I produce something useful to contribute, I'll be happy to submit it back.
highlandcattle (+2.1) 14/1/07 7:50PM	davidb. You are not allowed to release your contribution under GPL if you used source taken from the ROOL initiative, then you would have to release it under castles licence. If our code is completly new and has nothing to do with the sources from castle you can release it anyway you want
bluenose (+1.1) 14/1/07 8:29PM	In reply to daveb. Well you are correct until the licence is fully published then all is not set in stone or clear.However if you take the text from the ROOL site then it does suggest that you can free of charge download, modify and use but not for commercial gain. Though you can have that commercial freedom for a price. Anyway I agree that the devil will be in the detail and I'm sure that is why we still have not got the exact terms but it may not be long and then this debate will move on I'm sure. Text from ROOL website RISC OS software will be made available to third parties via a dual licensing mechanism. The first will be a free of charge (FOC) Source Code License which will give an individual/company the right to download, modify and publish RISC OS source code providing that the code is not used for any commercial purpose. The second Product Code Licence will give the right (for a small fee) for an individual/company to distribute product code to third parties for commercial use.
AMS (+2.1) 14/1/07 9:15PM	While I might agree that the "sounds" of the license is not open (in the sense GPL is), it is open enough to allow users to exploit and expand the OS (a good thing). If the IP becomes Castle's - so what - any contributed code will be a small proportion (initially anyway) of the total (and Castle have 100% of the existing code at the moment anyway). This may not suit some GPL fans - fair enough - but the purpose of this is not to promote a particular OS licensing model but rather to develope and support RISC OS and this ROOL mechanism is a viable way of acchieving that.
epistaxsis (+1.0) 14/1/07 9:31PM	*In reply to AMS:* agreed
hzn 15/1/07 11:47AM	To VirtualAcorn: "The open source licence under which RISC OS is made available either free or for pence per unit ...". Is there a chance for a much cheaper RISC OS 5 based VirtualAcorn-system?
flibble (+1.0) 15/1/07 11:57AM	*In reply to hzn:* Only if there's a version of RISC OS 5 for RiscPC hardware, or Virtual Acorn is expanded to also emulate Iyonix hardware.
polas 15/1/07 12:40PM	If RISC OS 5 is open sourced, depending on which parts are available, then would it be a lot of work to modify it to run on RiscPC or A9 hardware (or any other ARM based possible future machine for that matter)?
sa110 (+1.0) 15/1/07 1:07PM	*In reply to polas:* Why would you want 32bit RO5 to work on a RPC. You would lose access to all your 26bit software, or needed to run Aemulor, not to mention any podules you have installed.
polas (-1.0) 15/1/07 1:37PM	Good point, I suppose for cost reason, depending on the licence thats drawn up, such a solution might be a significantly cheaper way to upgrade an old machine than RO 4.
druck 15/1/07 1:44PM	By the time you would have had to buy aemulor and update all your software to 32bit then it wouldn't be cheaper. But this announcement isn't about saving a few pennies on an upgrade, that neither here not there, if you aren't willing to spend £60 quid on a copy of Adjust, never mind buy a new machine at least once a decade, you aren't really going to contributing much to the future of RISC OS. The future of RISC OS is what this is all about, it important that the licence is water tight to allow people to contribute their improvements to various RISC OS components for the benefit of all, but also to stop 3rd party commercial companies exploiting this work without giving anything back.
polas 15/1/07 1:53PM	The emphasis was on old machine - people might have upgraded to numerous newer machines in recent times, however RO 5 might breath new life into an old machine in the loft - was just an idea
mrmac (-0.9) 15/1/07 1:56PM	I guess it shouldn't be the hardest thing in the world depending on what castle release. My thought here is along the lines of wasn't a lot of RISC OS 5 actually developed on a RiscPC? If that is correct there must already exist in some form the components etc. to run RO5 on RPC hardware.... Why would we want to do this? Well I guess; so there is only one branch of the OS making future software development easier (ie only one OS to be supported so it will only need the software tested on multiple hardware and not multiple harware and OS versions)... What other benefits can I see? Well if RISC OS 5 can be run on RPC hardware and the most common podules made to work then there also must be a serious number of RPC's still out there running RISC OS 3 versions that have never been upgraded to 4... And if it's cheap enough ie. free or very cheap (only cost of ROM chips) then I guess there could be a number of RISC OS 3 RPC's upgraded to latest OS meaning development of software may be more attractive for some developers that have stopped doing updates or are really just maintaining current software and not developing it. TBH I can't see any bad outcome to making available components to allow an RPC rom to be built. Esspecially if it can maybe get some old RPC's/old RISC OS users dusted off and back in use and if they like it these people are brought back to the market and may then look to buy newer and faster hardware. Anyway Just my thoughts - look forward to see what comes from the latest chapter in the story and hope it is very successfull. John
rjek 15/1/07 2:01PM	There are good reasons to run a 32 bit OS on a RiscPC, as well as bad, but people never seem to mention them. It would also be possible (although quite a bit of work) to create a 32 bit OS that can also run 26 bit applications. (In much the same way Windows XP is 32 bit, but can run 16 bit applications, or the way Linux on an AMD64 can run 64 bit or 32 bit binaries.) Advantages: You get to fix many of the problems that only exist in 26 bit modes (for example, shared libraries suddenly become possible), aids developers in knowing that 26 bit things are a thing of the past, even if a specific user cannot afford to upgrade their hardware, single branch of the OS to develop, instead of two, etc. Disadvantages: You may have to pay for upgrades to your 26 bit software to make them 32 bit. Also, some software might just be completely unavailable, but most Iyonix and A9 Home users seem to cope anyway.
sa110 (+0.9) 15/1/07 3:25PM	*In reply to Polas:* So basically your after an RO5 upgrade for your RPC that costs next to nout. No wonder the RO market is it such a bad shape. Since when did Windows or Mac OS cost peanuts for the end user to purchase? Let's all go live in the land of make believe where everthing is free, no one is in poverty or ill health and where we all worship Phoebus Apollo
Use the forum for more comments on this article