"If it's as air tight as you believe, Castle would surely have protected itself by using the legal system in the past".
No, you cannot wriggle out of the position you have taken up, by simply turning the statement without giving any reference. We were discussing the ROL license, and I had not been quoting any unseen Castle licenses.
Castle has, however, used the legal system in the past. Remember back when ROL had a legal restraint put on them.
It is ROL that is making the claims about their license, that you are quoting as though they are airtight. I notice that you do not claim to have seen the license in question.
At present Castle seems to be happy with their current business situation, as they have not been making any claims against anyone, which I have heard about.
I presume that they would only consider initiating legal proceedings about something if they thought they needed to, and that it would be of benefit to their business operation.
I have read your referenced contributions, and it appears to me that you are happy to quote hearsay as though it is gospel.
I initially mentioned 3 straight forward facts, to which you added your comment about the 2nd fact. As you appear to have not seen the license, it you perhaps be better if you didn't quote hearsay as fact.
Has the wording of the complete license that ROL operates under ever been made available for public viewing?
If it's as air tight as you believe, ROL would surely have protected itself by using the legal system in the past.
If not it would normally just have to accept the situation, so as to not cause further damage to their own business, or the general business environment. This is what I found most confusing with ROL behaviour.
Ref your link, I would direct you to the "RISC OS Open's response" at the bottom of the article. I think Steve says it all.