John Pettigrew: To be pedantic, I was implying that there was a termination clause that was based on proveable breaches (two of which I gave an example of). The key word was "If". IANAL, but have enough experience of contracts to be fairly sure that there is normally some form of termination clause if one or other side commits the sort of breach I'd outlined.
The main reason for my de-lurking was the amount of, frankly, rubbish flying around. People standing for one side or the other, and then so-called respected journalists finger pointing and implying that they know things others don't.
None of us, bar Castle, ROL and possibly the Pace contracts lawyer, really know what is contained in the contracts and licenses. But they were the ones who decided to conduct this in public...
CMI: If ROL came out with a coherent explanation for some of the very legitimate points that have been raised (e.g. have they, and if so why did they, refuse to meet Castle to discuss things?) then they may be more believable.
As it stands, all we have from ROL is "we refute everything - and they breached the license first". Not the sort of response you would expect from a professional organisation (even if it is an organisation of 1 these days). It's more the stuff of primary school playgrounds.
Surely it would be better for everyone to either put up or shut up. If they want to conduct their fights in public, show us the license and point out the breaches. If not, shut up and deal with it privately.
In reply to John Cartmell:
(10:45) : If Castle have legitimately terminated ROLs license (e.g. if there is a clause that once notified of a breach, there are certain actions that should have been taken that weren't, or an invoice was raised and the undisputed parts weren't paid (you can pay the undisputed parts on an invoice, without tacitly accepting the other charges as long as this is clearly pointed out), then the license can be terminated), then actually Castle CAN do whatever they like with the bits of RISC OS that they own.
(10:25) : Your last paragraph epitomises the appalling nature of communication in the RISC OS market. The number of people who hint that they have seen offers, contracts etc and then say that they can't legally talk about them feeds the FUD. If you are under NDA (implied or otherwise), it is common practice to not even acknowledge the mere existence of something rather than "I know this, but can't tell you - na-na-nanana".