Reply to thread rdenk144: yes you are wrong. The meaning of "exclusive" depends upon where it is in a sentence, as I took the liberty of explaining. Read my answer again. If ROL have rights to sell RISC OS 4 and RISC OS 5 is derived from 3.XX, then Castle have not broken any contract, as 5 is not derived from 4 but from 3.XX. As ROL doesn't have access to RISC OS 3.XX code, only RISC OS 4, then I would assume that they only have rights, exclusive or otherwise, to RISC OS 4. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that Castle have broken any contract by selling another version of RISC OS to the desktop market. arenaman on 6/7/04 4:01PM [ Reply | Permalink | Report ] Please login before posting a comment. Use the form on the right to do so or create a free account.

Search the archives Today's featured article The New Drobe Discussion Forum  Discuss this. Published: 13 Jan 2001 Random article MIDISupport orders now being taken Copies emailed out, SerialMIDI to follow soon  Discuss this. Published: 10 Apr 2007 Useful links News and media: Iconbar • MyRISCOS • ArcSite • RISCOScode • ANS • C.S.A.Announce • Archive • Qercus • RiscWorld • Drag'n'Drop • GAG-News Top developers: RISCOS Ltd • RISC OS Open • MW Software • R-Comp • Advantage Six • VirtualAcorn Dealers: CJE Micros • APDL • Castle • a4 • X-Ample • Liquid Silicon • Webmonster Usergroups: WROCC • RONE • NKACC • IRUG • SASAUG • ROUGOL • RONWUG • MUG • WAUG • GAG • RISCOS.be Useful: RISCOS.org.uk • RISCOS.org • RISCOS.info • Filebase • Chris Why's Acorn/RISC OS collection • NetSurf Non-RISC OS: The Register • The Inquirer • Apple Insider • BBC News • Sky News • Google News • xkcd • diodesign

© 1999-2009 The Drobe Team. Some rights reserved, click here for more information
Powered by MiniDrobeCMS, based on J4U | Statistics
"Thanks for leaving out a significant part of my statement. Is that the standard of journalism we can expect from Drobe?"
Page generated in 0.0225 seconds.