RISC OS Licencing : Facts not Fiction
Aaron
rabid speculation, than facts I have opened a new thread.
I would ask that anyone posting here sticks to things that
they can prove and to provide evidence, or links to such
evidence, with their post.
I will kick things off:
I have already stated that RISCOS Ltd's head licence acted
like a Hire Purchase agreement and that after RISCOS Ltd
had completed it's obligations and after a 4 year period
gained ownership of all derivative works.
In addition I have said that code was *licenced* back to
Pace after the four years and hence could not be owned
by Pace. Since it couldn't be owned by Pace, this code
could not be sold to Castle.
As evidence this link:
http://www.filefactory.com/file/b050f2a/n/ROL_Leak.zip
is for the scanned copy of the major section of RISCOS
Ltd's head licence. This is the same set of files that
were leaked to the press last year. All I have done
is rename the files themselves. The contents of
each image (in TIFF format) is exactly as received
by several people, including myself, last year.
I suggest anyone wishing to post to this thread
reads this document carefully before doing so.
Finally please only make posts where what you are
saying *can be proved*.
Aaron
Rob Kendrick
Aaron <atim...@aol.com> wrote:
> I would ask that anyone posting here sticks to things that
> they can prove and to provide evidence, or links to such
> evidence, with their post.
<snip>
> As evidence this link:
>
> http://www.filefactory.com/file/b050f2a/n/ROL_Leak.zip
>
<snip>
> Finally please only make posts where what you are
> saying *can be proved*.
As has been repeatedly said by myself and others, and repeatedly
ignored by yourself, this document proves nothing, because it lacks the
context that would be provided by the rest of the documents.
What do you think ROL could be doing to move RISC OS forward?
B.
Simon Willcocks
Aaron <atim...@aol.com> wrote:
> As evidence this link:
>
> http://www.filefactory.com/file/b050f2a/n/ROL_Leak.zip
>
> is for the scanned copy of the major section of RISCOS
> Ltd's head licence.
Just to save Rob the time: what's missing from that document?
--
ROLF - The RISC OS Look and Feel on Linux.
http://stoppers.drobe.co.uk
http://ro-lookandfeel.blogspot.com/
Ollie Clark
> Since the thread about "rights holders" has become more about
> rabid speculation, than facts I have opened a new thread.
>
> I would ask that anyone posting here sticks to things that
> they can prove and to provide evidence, or links to such
> evidence, with their post.
>
> I will kick things off:
>
> I have already stated that RISCOS Ltd's head licence acted
> like a Hire Purchase agreement and that after RISCOS Ltd
> had completed it's obligations and after a 4 year period
> gained ownership of all derivative works.
>
> In addition I have said that code was *licenced* back to
> Pace after the four years and hence could not be owned
> by Pace. Since it couldn't be owned by Pace, this code
> could not be sold to Castle.
>
> As evidence this link:
>
> http://www.filefactory.com/file/b050f2a/n/ROL_Leak.zip
'kin 'ell. Could you have put it anywhere less accessible? Took
me five minutes to work out how to download it.
I thought there was an NDA on this anyway which is why you haven't
published it yourself to prove any of your claims? If that's no
longer the case, why not just publish all the relevant documentation
and have done with it?
> is for the scanned copy of the major section of RISCOS
> Ltd's head licence.
Ah. So it's still not a full set of relevent documentation so it's
still useless for actually unentangling this mess.
[snip Aaron making assertions which aren't demonstrably false but
also don't mean they own the entirety of RO, whatever that might
be defined as]
Hey ho. No further forward.
I think what has been gleaned from the "rights holders" thread is:
That ROL have no intention of getting RO to work on any new hardware
unless someone pays them to do it. Even then they probably don't have
the technical expertise.
That ROL believe the ROOL branch of RO is illegal and can not be
used in a commercial product.
Therefore unless something changes there will never be any new commercial
RO hardware.
Aaron, what do you think could be done about the above situation?
Alternatively, is the above situation acceptable to ROL?
Andrew Hodgkinson
> Since the thread about "rights holders" has become more about
> rabid speculation, than facts I have opened a new thread.
You have clearly not seen the last message I posted in the "rights
holders" thread. Therefore, I am going to repost it in full, with
apologies to those that have already seen it (complete with my typing
errors for authenticity - doh!).
On 23/02/2010 15:14, Peter Howkins wrote:
> I'm confused, why would E14 have signed an agreement that required
> their sub-licensee (ROL) to post back source changes, but then be
> beholden to their sub-licensee's copyright? That makes no sense.
It makes no sense because it is untrue. Aaron is in grave error.
I am for numerous reasons absolutely and utterly satisfied that CTL is
entirely legally entitled to licence to ROOL the source code you can find
available on the ROOL site. If ROL disagree then they need to take this
matter up witH CTL.
I wonder if the continuous implications that ROOL are knowingly acting
illegally is libellous. For example, "RISC OS Developement Team", taking
care to hide behind anonymity, accused me of this directly in a reply to
one of my posts.
On 22/02/2010 13:56, riscos-developer wrote:
> You cannot hide your legal responsibilities by claiming that you are
> only hosting the RISC OS Sources on behalf of a third party.
> You are the ones that are making them available, NOT Castle.
Bear in mind that then, on 23/02/2010 12:24, Aaron wrote:
> I will say it again. RISCOS Ltd owns all works derived from the
> original source code.
A few minutes later on 23/02/2010 12:50, Aaron wrote:
> Someone is going to want a licence to distribute
> RISC OS 5 with the machines (even if it is in very
> small numbers).
>
> Castle will not be able to grant such a licence.
> They don't have the rights to do so.
ROL should take up their complaint with CTL.
Furthermore, ROOL has been accused of deliberately stripping copyright
messages from ROOL source releases.
On 16/02/2010 22:06, riscos-developer wrote:
> It is even more interesting that all references to RISCOS Ltd
> copyright
> have been excised from the ROOL source releases as part of the
> "sanitising"
> of the sources for their public release!!!
On 17/02/2010 12:12, Aaron wrote:
> Many examples have had their copyright messages changed. However
> here is one example:
> http://www.riscosopen.org/viewer/view/castle/RiscOS/Sources/Video/Render/Draw/Docs/Clipping
You will note that the document to which Aaron provides a link contains
no copyright message at all. By just following the link he posts himself,
one can see that Aaron is mistaken. I have no idea why he made this claim
or linked to this particular document.
Such comments imply, allege or directly accuse members of ROOL of
intentional professional dishonesty and are being made in permanently
archived, world-readable forums. This is potentially damaging to my
career and the career of others involved in ROOL, even though I am
thoroughly convinced that these claims have *absolutely no basis in
reality whatsoever*. I cannot state that strongly enough.
One again: If ROL have a problem with CTL issuing licences to third
parties then they need to take this up with CTL, not ROOL.
--
TTFN, Andrew Hodgkinson
Find some electronic music at: Photos, wallpaper, software and more:
http://pond.org.uk/music.html http://pond.org.uk/
Andrew Hodgkinson
> As evidence this link:
> http://www.filefactory.com/file/b050f2a/n/ROL_Leak.zip
How quaint. That seems to be a fragment of the licence which was
terminated. This termination is why ROL signed, in front of independent
witnesses, a new licence with CTL in 2004.
http://www.drobe.co.uk/riscos/artifact1093.html
http://www.drobe.co.uk/riscos/artifact1192.html
You have acknowledged signing this document in public forums before,
albeit in the context of making very serious allegations of fraud; for
example, see:
http://www.drobe.co.uk/user.php?user=VirtualAcorn&listall=1#cid29940
You can argue about the validity of the document as much as you like. It
doesn't matter, because of one simple question: *Why exactly were ROL
signing a licence agreement written by CTL if their existing licence was
both valid, intact, and even gave them ownership of that to which CTL at
that moment laid claim?*
Since you give this old document "as evidence", it would appear that your
whole argument about "right and title" is based on a licence which was
terminated - a most embarrassing error on your part. Even worse, the
reasons for the termination cited by CTL were a failure to meet the
requirements of clause 3.6(a)(ii) in the document you "leaked", which
means 3.6(a)(i) applies and E14->Pace->CTL own everything. Thanks to your
"ROL_Leak.zip" file, we can all see that for ourselves. Talk about
hoisted own your own petard...!
I really do think this is all very silly. What on Earth do you hope to
achieve from all this? Why not just get on with making improvements to
Virtual Acorn and any other products you have and do some positive marketing?
Paul Stewart
Andrew Hodgkinson <ahod...@rowing.org.uk> wrote:
> On 24/02/2010 17:17, Aaron wrote:
>> Since the thread about "rights holders" has become more about
>> rabid speculation, than facts I have opened a new thread.
> You have clearly not seen the last message I posted in the "rights
> holders" thread. Therefore, I am going to repost it in full, with
> apologies to those that have already seen it (complete with my typing
> errors for authenticity - doh!).
> On 23/02/2010 15:14, Peter Howkins wrote:
>> I'm confused, why would E14 have signed an agreement that required
>> their sub-licensee (ROL) to post back source changes, but then be
>> beholden to their sub-licensee's copyright? That makes no sense.
> It makes no sense because it is untrue. Aaron is in grave error.
According to the Final Draft Memorandum Of Understaning signed by E14
and ROL that Paul Middleton was handing out at the South West Show,
point 12, would appear to be the one he is Aaron is referring to which
states: -
RISCOS Ltd my at its own discretion choose to extend or
develop derivatives of RISC OS 4. Any such extension or
derivatives created by RISCOS Ltd during the four year
period following the date of the formal license agreement
shall be licensed back to Element 14 Ltd including
documented source of all RISCOS Ltd extensions and
derivatives. This will be licensed to Element 14 Ltd on a
royalty free, non-exclusive, world-wide basis for use by
Element 14 Ltd for any purpose, subject always to the
covenant set out in 3 above. Element 14 Ltd reserves the
right to audit the Master source tree for RISC OS which will
be maintained by RISCOS Ltd.
Regards
--
Paul Stewart - Winslow, Buckingham, England.
(msn:pauls...@phawfaux.co.uk)
Theo Markettos
> Furthermore, ROOL has been accused of deliberately stripping copyright
> messages from ROOL source releases.
>
>
> > Many examples have had their copyright messages changed. However
> > here is one example:
> > http://www.riscosopen.org/viewer/view/castle/RiscOS/Sources/Video/Render/Draw/Docs/Clipping
>
> You will note that the document to which Aaron provides a link contains
> no copyright message at all. By just following the link he posts himself,
> one can see that Aaron is mistaken. I have no idea why he made this claim
> or linked to this particular document.
In addition, in news:DAy*xB...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk I demonstrated
that that code was, on the balance of probabilities, submitted by someone
who was an employee of Pace. I'll repeat the analysis below:
<quote>
FWIW there are some code commits by 'jfletche' in the Draw tree. For
example, rev 4.5 of:
http://www.riscosopen.org/viewer/view/castle/RiscOS/Sources/Video/Render/Draw/s/Draw
As you [Rob Kendrick] say there is nothing regarding IP attributions there,
in the code or the metadata. However, Justin [Fletcher] did work for Pace.
Those commits were on 16th Aug 2000.
According to his blog:
http://gerph.org/diary/2000/diary-aug.html
he left Pace for Picsel on 18th Aug 2000. In the entry of 11th Aug he also
mentions he's only a RISCOS Ltd shareholder and nothing more.
So it's fairly conclusive that the code was written while he was in the
employ of Pace and not of ROL.
But again that says nothing about any IPR assignment for that particular code.
</quote>
Theo
Peter Naulls
> According to his blog:
> http://gerph.org/diary/2000/diary-aug.html
>
> he left Pace for Picsel on 18th Aug 2000. In the entry of 11th Aug he also
> mentions he's only a RISCOS Ltd shareholder and nothing more.
>
> So it's fairly conclusive that the code was written while he was in the
> employ of Pace and not of ROL.
>
> But again that says nothing about any IPR assignment for that particular code.
>
Right, and as I noted much earlier, but probably got lost, the code in
question is an optional build, so if it were really demonstrated that
it belonged to ROL, it could be readily disabled or removed without
any difficulty. Perhaps in such a theoretical scenario, something might
be due to ROL, but the feature is a little obscure, and hard to put
a value on. It's credible, if perhaps unlikely, that this code actually
belongs to JF. But he would have to answer that.
David Holden
On 24-Feb-2010, Andrew Hodgkinson <ahod...@rowing.org.uk> wrote:
> You can argue about the validity of the document as much as you like. It
> doesn't matter, because of one simple question: *Why exactly were ROL
> signing a licence agreement written by CTL if their existing licence was
> both valid, intact, and even gave them ownership of that to which CTL at
> that moment laid claim?*
I would have thought the answer was fairly obvious. In order to try to put
an end to all this nonsense ROL were prepared to give up a lot of their
rights to try preserve what remained of the 'RISC OS market' as a whole.
They'd already done this once before.
Remember that this only happened after a massive concerted 'anti ROL' PR
campaign by CTL in which they issued threats against ROL's AMSs and accused
ROL of a whole series of things, none of which were true. As someone else
has already remarked, if CTL really owned RISC OS "lock, stock and barrel"
and ROL had really broken their agreements why did *they* need a new
licence? Why didn't they just terminate the old one and shut ROL down?
Unfortunately it was all in vain.
--
David Holden - APDL - <http://www.apdl.co.uk>
David Pitt
> Aaron wrote:
[snip]
> >
> > http://www.filefactory.com/file/b050f2a/n/ROL_Leak.zip
>
> 'kin 'ell. Could you have put it anywhere less accessible? Took me five
> minutes to work out how to download it.
I cracked it a bit quicker than that but some porn turned up just as the
download occurred, "Score Real Girls Now". Perhaps it is normal to sex
things up these days.
--
David Pitt
Andrew Hodgkinson
> I would have thought the answer was fairly obvious. In order to try to put
> an end to all this nonsense ROL were prepared to give up a lot of their
> rights to try preserve what remained of the 'RISC OS market' as a whole.
So ROL were prepared to quite literally sign away all "right and title",
as Aaron claims it, to what ROL claims is their only piece of IPR - out
of the good of their hearts?!
> if CTL really owned RISC OS "lock, stock and barrel"
> and ROL had really broken their agreements why did *they* need a new
> licence? Why didn't they just terminate the old one and shut ROL down?
I suspect CTL liked the idea of royalty payments restarting and liked the
idea of being able to merge the RO4 features into RO5 - something ROL
have singularly failed to do in any form - to produce a result which they
presumably hoped combined the best features of both to produce a product
with greater market potential than either.
Chris Hall
"David Holden" <Spa...@apdl.co.uk> wrote:
It's a tricky one this - does one believe that CTL were being rather
devious, sailing close to the wind on what was legal, making some
money and pushing their luck as far as they could? Or does one believe
that ROL, with the health of the Acorn/RISC OS platform at heart, made
the best agreement they could, at each stage, for the benefit of RISC
OS users as a whole?
Actually I believe both - the uncertainty probably prevented either
party from making large amounts of money on the back of the huge
number of ARM chips going into PDAs and suchlike.
Pity.
--
Chris Hall <ch...@svrsig.org>
Chris Hall
David Pitt <ne...@pittdj.co.uk> wrote:
> Ollie Clark <use...@ollieclark.com> wrote:
'The Acorn Story' or 'How not to Succeed in Business' - would make a
good book if someone who is dispassionate and disinterested (and knows
the truth) could be persuaded to write it.
--
Chris Hall <ch...@svrsig.org>
Jim Nagel
> ... against ROL's AMSs ...
please spell out? what's AMS?
(probably not American Meteorlogical Society or Association of Muslim
Schools or other Google results.)
--
Jim Nagel www.archivemag.co.uk
David Holden
On 25-Feb-2010, Jim Nagel <jimn...@abbeypress.co.uk> wrote:
> please spell out? what's AMS?
Authorised Manufacturing Sub-licencee
Ollie Clark
> David Holden wrote on 25 Feb:
>> ... against ROL's AMSs ...
>
> please spell out? what's AMS?
"Authorised Manufacturing Sub-licenseei - the name given by RISCOS Ltd
to those companies who manufacture RISC OS-based devices under licence"
Taken from, er, the Archive website... ;-)
Ian Hamilton
Jim Nagel <jimn...@abbeypress.co.uk> wrote:
> David Holden wrote on 25 Feb:
> > ... against ROL's AMSs ...
> please spell out? what's AMS?
Authorised Manufacturing Sublicensee.
Chris Hughes
Jim Nagel <jimn...@abbeypress.co.uk> wrote:
> David Holden wrote on 25 Feb:
>> ... against ROL's AMSs ...
> please spell out? what's AMS?
Authorised Manufacturing Sub-licensees
--
Chris Hughes
Aaron
> On 24/02/2010 17:17, Aaron wrote:
>
> > Since the thread about "rights holders" has become more about
> > rabid speculation, than facts I have opened a new thread.
>
> You have clearly not seen the last message I posted in the "rights
> holders" thread. Therefore, I am going to repost it in full, with
> apologies to those that have already seen it (complete with my typing
> errors for authenticity - doh!).
>
> On 23/02/2010 15:14, Peter Howkins wrote:
>
> > I'm confused, why would E14 have signed an agreement that required
> > their sub-licensee (ROL) to post back source changes, but then be
> > beholden to their sub-licensee's copyright? That makes no sense.
>
> It makes no sense because it is untrue. Aaron is in grave error.
Sorry no. There is indeed a grave error, but it's most
certainly not mine.
> I am for numerous reasons absolutely and utterly satisfied that CTL is
> entirely legally entitled to licence to ROOL the source code you can find
> available on the ROOL site.
I am pleased to hear it. Now simply make this paperwork available
for all to inspect. Since you also must have an indemnity from Castle,
I suggest you alos make this public.
>If ROL disagree then they need to take this
> matter up witH CTL.
Possibly, produce the indemnity and this might be the case. Without
this any discussion would be with ROOL.
If you wish to disagree with me that's fine. At least quote the
documents on which you base your conclusions.
<snip comments not made by me>
> > Someone is going to want a licence to distribute
> > RISC OS 5 with the machines (even if it is in very
> > small numbers).
>
> > Castle will not be able to grant such a licence.
> > They don't have the rights to do so.
>
> ROL should take up their complaint with CTL.
>
> Furthermore, ROOL has been accused of deliberately stripping copyright
> messages from ROOL source releases.
Copyright messages have been changed. I for one have said
that I don't know when or where these have been changed.
I will repeat:
Castle *do not* have any rights to grant licences for RISC OS.
The rights for thin clients/STBs rest with Pace.
The rights for anything else rest with RISCOS Ltd
If you can prove me wrong, wonderful. But to do so you will need
to provide *evidence*.
Aaron
Rob Kendrick
Aaron <atim...@aol.com> wrote:
> Castle *do not* have any rights to grant licences for RISC OS.
> The rights for thin clients/STBs rest with Pace.
> The rights for anything else rest with RISCOS Ltd
You're breaking your own rules; you've not provided any evidence for
these claims.
B.
Aaron
Because, you silly man, the whole aim of RISCOS Ltd is to keep RISC OS
alive. That's why it was set up. That's why it's owned by the dealers
and
developers of thew RISC OS community.
RISCOS Ltd was prepared to grant Castle Technology Ltd the rights that
CTL needed to continue trading.
The first party to find an error in the documents was Peter Wild. CTL
asked RISCOS Ltd if this error could be corrected. RISCOS Ltd
agreed on the basis that any error found by RISCOS Ltd would
also be corrected. This formed a side letter to the agreeement.
Very shortly afterward, and when comparing the agreed copy to
the signature copy a number of other "errors" came to light.
RISCOS Ltd asked for these to be corrected. CTL refused.
RISCOS Ltd requested binding arbitration (which has previosuly
been agreed in the meeting), CTL refused.
CTL were given chance after chance to correct the document.
CTL refused to do so.
At this stage the document went in the bin (although RISCOS Ltd
kept asking CTL to correct things on numerous occasions).
Now, here's the science bit...
Firstly the doucuement produced for signature was not a true
or accurate reflection of the agreement reached between the
two parties. Secondly, by failing to adhere to the terms of the
agreement (the binding arbitration clause) CTL rendered
the document beyond repair.
There is no signed document that reflects the agreement
that was reached.
RISCOS Ltd were still prepared to enter into an agreement,
by CTL repeatedly refused to stick to what had been agreed
in the room.
The directors of RISCOS Ltd repeatedly tried tro get CTL to
see sense. But CTL wanted all, or nothing. They went away
with nothing.
The result was CTL went away with nothing. With no rights
it was just a matter of time. As we have now seen CTL
themselves are no longer trading and the other related
companies have crumbled.
Tematic - wound up
Iyonix Ltd - no longer trading
Castle Technology Ltd - no longer trading
and worse still
Castle Technology Holdings Ltd (the company that was set
up to hold the IPR) was struck off by Companies House as
the Directors failed in their responsibilities.
http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/b82ca1422ce10a9278e3b00f7d8eefc9/wcprodorder?ft=1
what little rights CTIL did own might now actually belong to the
Crown!
Now back to your earlier point, which I have already answered
previously.
The whole point is the RISC OS 5 is handicapped, it cannot be
licenced. If
someone wants to come along and use RISC OS 5 with a product
*they will never get a licence* because *CTL cannot issue one*
As you think different, prove it.
Aaron
Mike Clark
Aaron <atim...@aol.com> wrote:
[snip]
>
> The first party to find an error in the documents was Peter Wild. CTL
> asked RISCOS Ltd if this error could be corrected. RISCOS Ltd
> agreed on the basis that any error found by RISCOS Ltd would
> also be corrected. This formed a side letter to the agreeement.
>
> Very shortly afterward, and when comparing the agreed copy to
> the signature copy a number of other "errors" came to light.
> RISCOS Ltd asked for these to be corrected. CTL refused.
>
> RISCOS Ltd requested binding arbitration (which has previosuly
> been agreed in the meeting), CTL refused.
>
> CTL were given chance after chance to correct the document.
> CTL refused to do so.
>
> At this stage the document went in the bin (although RISCOS Ltd
> kept asking CTL to correct things on numerous occasions).
>
> Now, here's the science bit...
>
> Firstly the doucuement produced for signature was not a true
> or accurate reflection of the agreement reached between the
> two parties. Secondly, by failing to adhere to the terms of the
> agreement (the binding arbitration clause) CTL rendered
> the document beyond repair.
>
> There is no signed document that reflects the agreement
> that was reached.
>
That is an interesting set of statements. My understanding of english
contract law is that when reviewed by a third party it must be clear to
the third party that all the signatories to the agreement had a common
understanding of what the terms of the agreement were at the time they
entered into it. If any evidence can be produced that there wasn't a
common understanding then the agreement may be judged to have been
invalid.
Mike
--
o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark
<\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing,
"> || _`\<,_ |__\ \> | immunology lecturer, antibody engineer and
` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user" http://www.antibody.me.uk/
Vince M Hudd
[...]
> As evidence this link:
> http://www.filefactory.com/file/b050f2a/n/ROL_Leak.zip
Yuck. What a horrible place to host it - not only because of the pop-under
picturing semi-naked women (I've no objection to semi-naked women - but I
object to them appearing unexpectedly on my screen when I'm not in the
privacy of my own home!), but also because it looks as though that download
will be inaccessible to many RISC OS users (those who don't use another
machine, or who aren't running the RISC OS port of Firefox, which I would
guess is the only RISC OS browser that would be capable).
> is for the scanned copy of the major section of RISCOS Ltd's head licence.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
So it's incomplete, then.
I've only speed-read it so far, and therefore I'm not going to make any real
comments on it until I read it properly (it's a long document, and I'd
rather do so when I can read and digest it with no distractions).
However, I will say that the incomplete nature of the document could have a
significant impact on the interpretation of many parts - especially since
page 1 is missing, which would appear to include a number of initial
definitions of terms used within the document. Most notably, when I
initially speed-read it, the one thing which didn't jump out of me was a
definition of that which the licence is actually in respect of. (I accept
that it could be there, though, and that I just missed it - but that doesn't
change that other definitions are missing.)
As such, while the document will be interesting and give everyone who reads
(and is capable of understanding) it a /potentially/ better grasp on the
terms of RISCOS Ltd's original licence than one based on speculation and
interpretation of comments made in press releases, annual reports, etc.,
there is still going to be room for error.
--
Vince M Hudd ::: Soft Rock Software
http://misc.vinceh.com ::: http://www.softrock.co.uk
Is there any scope for a new Bristol RISC OS user group?
See: http://www.riscository.com
Andrew Hodgkinson
> I will repeat:
>
> Castle *do not* have any rights to grant licences for RISC OS.
> The rights for thin clients/STBs rest with Pace.
> The rights for anything else rest with RISCOS Ltd
So you do confirm that are indeed accusing in public ROOL and its members
of knowingly acting illegally?
Andrew Hodgkinson
>> I really do think this is all very silly. What on Earth do you hope to
>> achieve from all this? Why not just get on with making improvements to
>> Virtual Acorn and any other products you have and do some positive marketing?
>
> Because, you silly man [ further abuse and speculation snipped ]
Oh dear. When in a hole, Aaron, it is wise to stop digging.
Simon Willcocks
> Tematic - wound up
> Iyonix Ltd - no longer trading
> Castle Technology Ltd - no longer trading
>
> and worse still
>
> Castle Technology Holdings Ltd (the company that was set
> up to hold the IPR) was struck off by Companies House as
[pause for emphasis]
> the Directors failed in their responsibilities.
Is that in the document you can order from companies house? I ask because a
quick check found: "A private company that is not trading may apply to
Companies House to be struck off the register. It can do this if the company
is no longer needed. For example, the active directors may wish to retire
and there is no-one to take over from them; or it is a subsidiary whose name
is no longer needed; or it was set up to exploit an idea that turned out not
to be feasible."
Simon
trevj
wrote:
> In message <bee5f9fe-6ff0-4673-88a9-58e22785f...@d27g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>
> Aaron <atimbr...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > the Directors failed in their responsibilities.
>
> Is that in the document you can order from companies house? I ask because a
> quick check found: "A private company that is not trading may apply to
> Companies House to be struck off the register. It can do this if the company
> is no longer needed. For example, the active directors may wish to retire
> and there is no-one to take over from them; or it is a subsidiary whose name
> is no longer needed; or it was set up to exploit an idea that turned out not
> to be feasible."
The 1985 Act clause under which companies were struck off before 1 Oct
2009 has now been repealed by the 2006 Act.
And the deadline for applying to restore CTHL would be 1 Oct 2015...
so that gives the RISC OS community 5 1/2 years to sort it out!
http://www.tsol.gov.uk/Publications/companyrest.pdf#4
Ollie Clark
>
> Because, you silly man, the whole aim of RISCOS Ltd is to keep RISC OS
> alive.
Alive, but not moving forward anymore. By your (ROL, not you personally)
own admission, you can only produce it for 20 year old hardware and an
emulator of that hardware.
Given that, how do you think ROL can help RO move forward onto new
hardware? Do they even want that or is their aim now just to sell
it on VA and ever decreasing numbers of RPCs?
Rob Kendrick
Ollie Clark <use...@ollieclark.com> wrote:
> Alive, but not moving forward anymore. By your (ROL, not you
> personally) own admission, you can only produce it for 20 year old
> hardware and an emulator of that hardware.
>
> Given that, how do you think ROL can help RO move forward onto new
> hardware? Do they even want that or is their aim now just to sell
> it on VA and ever decreasing numbers of RPCs?
Especially given having the OS stuck in the past on RPCs and RPC
emulator stifles software development, too.
B.
Ray Dawson
> On 25/02/2010 12:04, Aaron wrote:
>
> > I will repeat:
> >
> > Castle *do not* have any rights to grant licences for RISC OS. The
> > rights for thin clients/STBs rest with Pace. The rights for anything
> > else rest with RISCOS Ltd
>
> So you do confirm that are indeed accusing in public ROOL and its members
> of knowingly acting illegally?
I don't think that is what Aaron has said. ROOL presumably acted in good
faith but were given a 'licence' by someone who has no right to grant it.
However 'good faith' doesn't make the use of the software legal.
Cheers,
Ray D
trevj
> Given that, how do you think ROL can help RO move forward onto new
> hardware? Do they even want that or is their aim now just to sell
> it on VA and ever decreasing numbers of RPCs?
For those who may have forgotten (or missed) the TIB discussion:
http://www.iconbar.com/forums/viewthread.php?threadid=11262
...some proposed options (from the first page of comments) were:
1. ROL have to do something drastic or radical, such as OSSing what
they have, or something even more serious
2. Continue as things are now
3. Convince ROL to work on the ROOL codebase
4. Convince ROOL to work on the ROL codebase
5. ROL finally goes into administration, taking users' cash with it.
The commercial source is lost, or forever locked away over endless
arguments over copyright
6. As above, but the developers (all, what, three of them?) take
matters into their own hands and merge the principal changes into the
ROOL branch [in which case code rights would belong to ROL, not the
developers]
7. ROL subscribers submit a petition to ROL [...] requesting a
(partial) refund [...], which could then be donated to ROOL to support
further development... on the condition that all ROL intellectual
property/code/etc. [...] then be sold to ROOL for the refund price
[...]
8. Let bygones be bygones and approach ROOL / Castle offering them a
deal whereby they get full ownership of the source of RISCOS Ltd's
branch of RISC OS [...] in exchange for an exclusive ten year royalty-
free licence to market, manufacture and sell RISC OS for the desktop
computer market
9. ROL need to go away and the money they get from subscribers needs
to be directed at Firefox, Netsurf and ROOL
10. ROL abandon [their branch of the OS, due to lack of manpower] and
work on bolting the Select features on top of RO 5 (and perhaps finish
off the IOMD port)
Simon Willcocks
Andrew Hodgkinson <ahod...@rowing.org.uk> wrote:
> I am for numerous reasons absolutely and utterly satisfied that CTL is
> entirely legally entitled to licence to ROOL the source code you can find
> available on the ROOL site.
You know, had I made a statement like that, don't you think you'd have
dismissed it as "opinion"? After all, Aaron appears to be "absolutely and
utterly satisfied" of the opposite.
I was hoping Rob or Vince would jump in, but since they seem to have missed
it, I'll ask instead: what are these numerous reasons, and what is the
evidence that they are based on?
Rob Kendrick
Simon Willcocks <simon.w...@t-online.de> wrote:
> In message <v7fhn.145692$UQ6....@newsfe04.ams2>
> Andrew Hodgkinson <ahod...@rowing.org.uk> wrote:
>
> > I am for numerous reasons absolutely and utterly satisfied that CTL
> > is entirely legally entitled to licence to ROOL the source code you
> > can find available on the ROOL site.
>
> You know, had I made a statement like that, don't you think you'd have
> dismissed it as "opinion"? After all, Aaron appears to be
> "absolutely and utterly satisfied" of the opposite.
>
> I was hoping Rob or Vince would jump in, but since they seem to have
> missed it, I'll ask instead: what are these numerous reasons, and
> what is the evidence that they are based on?
Because Andrew is not CTL. Because Andrew is not needlessly abusive
when making claims. Because Andrew doesn't claim to have documentation
that proves it and yet inconveniently can't show it. Because
Andrew's not claiming ownership of anything, nor making comment on
ownership.
Numerous reasons.
B.
Simon Willcocks
Rob Kendrick <nn...@rjek.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 21:11:59 +0100
> Simon Willcocks <simon.w...@t-online.de> wrote:
>
> > In message <v7fhn.145692$UQ6....@newsfe04.ams2>
> > Andrew Hodgkinson <ahod...@rowing.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > I am for numerous reasons absolutely and utterly satisfied that CTL
> > > is entirely legally entitled to licence to ROOL the source code you
> > > can find available on the ROOL site.
> >
> > You know, had I made a statement like that, don't you think you'd have
> > dismissed it as "opinion"? After all, Aaron appears to be
> > "absolutely and utterly satisfied" of the opposite.
> >
> > I was hoping Rob or Vince would jump in, but since they seem to have
> > missed it, I'll ask instead: what are these numerous reasons, and
> > what is the evidence that they are based on?
>
> Because Andrew is not CTL.
Alright. I'm not ROL.
> Because Andrew is not needlessly abusive when making claims.
That sounds more like a reason why you didn't ask, than a reason why Andrew
is satisfied about the licencing situation. He did make a claim, though.
> Because Andrew doesn't claim to have documentation that proves it and yet
> inconveniently can't show it.
He hasn't claimed to have any evidence yet, but if he does, I won't be
surprised if he's not entitled to show it. Perhaps we will be able to
discuss it, though, and come to a clearer understanding of the situation.
> Because Andrew's not claiming ownership of anything, nor making comment on
> ownership.
But surely he is making a comment on ownership when he says that "CTL is
entirely legally entitled to licence to ROOL the source code you can find
available on the ROOL site." If you don't think that's a comment on CTL's
rights, please explain why not.
Am I right in thinking that ROOL's licence excludes commercial exploitation
of the code, by the way?
> Numerous reasons.
And I hope he'll tell us what they are.
Andrew Hodgkinson
>> I am for numerous reasons absolutely and utterly satisfied that CTL is
>> entirely legally entitled to licence to ROOL the source code you can find
>> available on the ROOL site.
>
> You know, had I made a statement like that, don't you think you'd have
> dismissed it as "opinion"?
Quite possibly. And if you or any other reader wishes to take it as
uninformed opinion and nothing more then so be it. Nonetheless, that is
my position.
Andrew Hodgkinson
>> Because Andrew is not needlessly abusive when making claims.
>
>He did make a claim, though.
I claimed nothing. I stated that I was "satisfied that" CTL is (to
paraphrase myself, how bizarre) operating legally. That's a statement of
opinion, not a claim of fact.
> But surely he is making a comment on ownership when he says that "CTL is
> entirely legally entitled to licence to ROOL the source code you can find
> available on the ROOL site."
No, because of the very important preceding words "I am for numerous
reasons absolutely and utterly satisfied that" which you snipped of the
section you quote.
I do understand that you're politely accusing me of hypocrisy after our
discussion about facts versus opinion in another thread, however I
thought my wording made it clear that I was stating opinion as opinion,
not opinion as fact. I can only apologise if that wasn't the case and
hope that this reply clarifies the issue.
Rob Kendrick
Simon Willcocks <simon.w...@t-online.de> wrote:
> > Because Andrew is not CTL.
>
> Alright. I'm not ROL.
Indeed not.
> > Because Andrew is not needlessly abusive when making claims.
>
> That sounds more like a reason why you didn't ask, than a reason why
> Andrew is satisfied about the licencing situation. He did make a
> claim, though.
Yes, it is a reason I didn't ask. Which is why I listed it in a list
of reasons I didn't ask.
> But surely he is making a comment on ownership when he says that "CTL
> is entirely legally entitled to licence to ROOL the source code you
> can find available on the ROOL site." If you don't think that's a
> comment on CTL's rights, please explain why not.
You're reading a great deal into what Andrew has said than I think he
meant, or certainly what I read by it. And as for individual and
specific rights claims, I have no problem. I do have a problem with
people butting into otherwise unrelated discussions to claim they own
everything, make (provably) absurd claims about the ownership, and
claim that other parties are breaking the law. And then do nothing
about it, including proving it.
Andrew's done none of that.
B.
druck
> I will repeat:
>
> Castle *do not* have any rights to grant licences for RISC OS.
> The rights for thin clients/STBs rest with Pace.
> The rights for anything else rest with RISCOS Ltd
>
> If you can prove me wrong, wonderful. But to do so you will need
> to provide *evidence*.
No one but you is making claims to own RISC OS in whole or part. It is
not up to them to disprove your unsubstantiated claims. You've yet to
put forward any compelling argument, just patently absurd
interpretations of long voided licence conditions.
And hiding documents of unknown providence on dodgy download sites, with
missing pages, and as far as anyone knows, sections written in crayon
just isn't good enough.
---druck
Vince M Hudd
> In message <v7fhn.145692$UQ6....@newsfe04.ams2>
> Andrew Hodgkinson <ahod...@rowing.org.uk> wrote:
> > I am for numerous reasons absolutely and utterly satisfied that CTL is
> > entirely legally entitled to licence to ROOL the source code you can
> > find available on the ROOL site.
[...]
> I was hoping Rob or Vince would jump in, but since they seem to have
> missed it, I'll ask instead: what are these numerous reasons, and what is
> the evidence that they are based on?
There are a number of reasons, amongst which are: The fact that Andrew is
speaking as a member of the ROOL team, and *not* as a representative of CTL.
The fact that he's expressing his own satisfaction with ROOL's licence from
CTL. The fact that IIRC in the same post Andrew said something several times
that I've said myself time and time again.
Ben Avison
> As evidence this link:
>
> http://www.filefactory.com/file/b050f2a/n/ROL_Leak.zip
Thanks for making that public, Aaron. Now everyone can see the holes in
your
arguments.
We can argue until we're blue in the face about which agreements are valid.
A definitive decision on that would probably only come from a legal ruling
which we're probably never going to get. But there are only so many
possible
combinations:
1) If the 1998 licence is in effect, then Castle has all right, title and
interest in the underlying software (being RISC OS 3.8) and RISCOS Ltd has
right, title and interest in its own modifications to that software, but
Castle has the right to use and sublicence the first four years' worth of
RISCOS Ltd's modifications. This would be everything up to 2003, which
would
be about Select 3, I believe.
2) If the 1998 licence was terminated but the 2004 licence is not valid,
then all right, title and interest, including that of all RISCOS Ltd's
modifications to date, revert to Castle.
3) If the 2004 licence is valid then Castle also have all right title and
interest in everything.
In none of those scenarios could RISCOS Ltd be said to "own" "RISC OS". In
fact Castle is entitled to at least a copy of all RISCOS Ltd's sources up
to
Select 3, and as everyone can see from the ROOL CVS repository, RISCOS Ltd
never returned any sources beyond those for RISC OS 4.02.
Ben
Simon Willcocks
Andrew Hodgkinson <ahod...@rowing.org.uk> wrote:
> On 25/02/2010 21:20, Simon Willcocks wrote:
>
> > But surely he is making a comment on ownership when he says that "CTL is
> > entirely legally entitled to licence to ROOL the source code you can find
> > available on the ROOL site."
>
> No, because of the very important preceding words "I am for numerous
> reasons absolutely and utterly satisfied that" which you snipped of the
> section you quote.
In my defence, the whole section was quoted further up in the e-mail you
replied to. I wasn't trying to hide the context.
> I do understand that you're politely accusing me of hypocrisy after our
> discussion about facts versus opinion in another thread, however I
> thought my wording made it clear that I was stating opinion as opinion,
> not opinion as fact. I can only apologise if that wasn't the case and
> hope that this reply clarifies the issue.
Alright, but presumably you don't think of your opinion as worthless,
otherwise you wouldn't have bothered making it. I'm just trying to find out
what it's based on. Is that unreasonable?
It's not like I've ever supported Aaron's claim to RISC OS, either; I'm just
trying to get a fair hearing for the arguments on both sides.
Simon Willcocks
Vince M Hudd <sp...@softrock.co.uk> wrote:
> Simon Willcocks <simon.w...@t-online.de> wrote:
> > In message <v7fhn.145692$UQ6....@newsfe04.ams2>
> > Andrew Hodgkinson <ahod...@rowing.org.uk> wrote:
>
> > > I am for numerous reasons absolutely and utterly satisfied that CTL is
> > > entirely legally entitled to licence to ROOL the source code you can
> > > find available on the ROOL site.
>
> [...]
>
> > I was hoping Rob or Vince would jump in, but since they seem to have
> > missed it, I'll ask instead: what are these numerous reasons, and what is
> > the evidence that they are based on?
>
> There are a number of reasons, amongst which are: The fact that Andrew is
> speaking as a member of the ROOL team, and *not* as a representative of CTL.
> The fact that he's expressing his own satisfaction with ROOL's licence from
> CTL. The fact that IIRC in the same post Andrew said something several times
> that I've said myself time and time again.
I'm sorry, I guess I must have phrased my question badly, since you and Rob
seem to have taken it as a request for reasons why you didn't ask Andrew
about his comment. (I admit, I couldn't resist a little dig, though.)
I was trying to ask what Andrew's "numerous reasons" for his opinion were,
so that we could have an idea of how much weight to give to that opinion.
I'm not interested in dismissing anyone's opinion outright, because I think
that we're going to have to talk about those things if we ever want to get
beyond them. Ben Avison's posting <op.u8ptt...@amoe.local> is more
the sort of thing that has a chance to bring things to a conclusion.
Vince M Hudd
> In message <gemini.kyf4gb0...@softrock.co.uk>
> Vince M Hudd <sp...@softrock.co.uk> wrote:
[...]
> I'm sorry, I guess I must have phrased my question badly, since you and
> Rob seem to have taken it as a request for reasons why you didn't ask
> Andrew about his comment. (I admit, I couldn't resist a little dig,
> though.)
> I was trying to ask what Andrew's "numerous reasons" for his opinion were,
> so that we could have an idea of how much weight to give to that opinion.
Sorry, yes, reading it back now I can see that. All I can say it was the end
of a long day!
> I'm not interested in dismissing anyone's opinion outright, because I
> think that we're going to have to talk about those things if we ever want
> to get beyond them. Ben Avison's posting <op.u8ptt...@amoe.local>
> is more the sort of thing that has a chance to bring things to a
> conclusion.
I've just read that post. I've yet to read the incomplete licence agreement
properly, though. (Well, as "properly" as is possible given what's missing,
which could fundementally affect the meaning of some parts).
Andrew Hodgkinson
> I'm not interested in dismissing anyone's opinion outright, because I think
> that we're going to have to talk about those things if we ever want to get
> beyond them. Ben Avison's posting<op.u8ptt...@amoe.local> is more
> the sort of thing that has a chance to bring things to a conclusion.
I already said many similar things on 24/02/2010 19:49 and the leaked
fragment of the old document has been around for days. I expected bar
room lawyers to misinterpret it and lots of arguments spring up from
that, but instead, it seems to have been ignored.
Perhaps that's wise, given the superseding 2004 licence exists.
We will reach no conclusion here. Never have before, never will this
time. The only conclusion we could find would be in court, although in
this whole childish playground nonsense, quite what one "side" "winning"
over the other would ultimately achieve is unclear.
Aaron recently said: "the whole aim of RISCOS Ltd is to keep RISC OS alive."
Allow me to be the first to congratulate the members of ROL on the
wonderful job they've done. Last one out, please switch off the lights.
David Holden
On 26-Feb-2010, Vince M Hudd <sp...@softrock.co.uk> wrote:
> I've just read that post. I've yet to read the incomplete licence
> agreement properly, though. (Well, as "properly" as is possible
> given what's missing, which could fundementally affect the meaning
> of some parts).
FYI the missing 1st page is the start of the definitions of the terms used
in the agreement, eg, the names of the parties, AMS, Acorn Clan, AIS, Bug
Document, etc.
The missing few pages at the end deal with the time scale and amounts that
ROL are to pay to E14 for the licence, accounting for royalty payments,
acknowledgement that E14 has paid for their shares in ROL, when these shares
shall be delivered, dispute procedures, limited warranty by E14, limited
liability by E14, etc. and space for the signatures
My guess is that whoever copied this document scanned only the bits that he
felt were relevant. No doubt the conspiracy theorists will wish to try to
say that something significant has been left out but I can't see anything.
--
David Holden - APDL - <http://www.apdl.co.uk>
Rob Kendrick
"David Holden" <Spa...@apdl.co.uk> wrote:
> > I've just read that post. I've yet to read the incomplete licence
> > agreement properly, though. (Well, as "properly" as is possible
> > given what's missing, which could fundementally affect the meaning
> > of some parts).
<snip>
> My guess is that whoever copied this document scanned only the bits
> that he felt were relevant. No doubt the conspiracy theorists will
> wish to try to say that something significant has been left out but I
> can't see anything.
Unfortunately, neither can anybody else.
B.
Andrew Hodgkinson
> 2) If the 1998 licence was terminated but the 2004 licence is not valid,
> then all right, title and interest, including that of all RISCOS Ltd's
> modifications to date, revert to Castle.
...leaving ROL, I guess, with no rights. Not good for anyone.
> 3) If the 2004 licence is valid then Castle also have all right title and
> interest in everything.
...and ROL would have a whole bunch of rights defined therein. Could've
been a happy ending were it not for the sabre rattling (yes, there are
allegations of this on *both* sides; this is clearly a messy business).
On Select 3, I think you may be incorrect:
http://select.riscos.com/
http://web.archive.org/web/20030606161626/http://select.riscos.com/
"19th May 2003: Select 3 Issue 1 available for Download". That puts it
just outside the 4 year span assuming the date on the Select web page is
correct. OTOH Select 2 Issue 3 is easily inside, at November 2002 and as
you point out, apparently no code beyond 4.02 was fed back. It seems to
me that this might put ROL in breach of the licence conditions, but I
state this only as an opinion based on observations of the dates and
material available (I can't emphasise that enough).
AFAIAA Select releases are softload ROM components provided as part of a
hard disc image with a softload tool which runs when the machine powers
up, boots from its internal ROM and starts running the hard disc based
boot sequence.
http://www.riscos.info/index.php/RISC_OS_FAQ
In the document Aaron supplied, you will note section 3.1(b)(v) on page 5
where it states clearly that ROM components may not be distributed as
part of a disc image.
That seems quite harsh because it means in practice the only way for ROL
to release updates to existing machines is via ROM chips, some kind of
dedicated Flash ROM and programmer tool (c.f. Iyonix) on e.g. a CD, or on
physical media to AMSs who in turn supply ROMs/Flash. That's quite
cumbersome and expensive. Nonetheless, those appear to be the terms.
It would seem to me, given the way Select was released and given the
leaked document from Aaron, that ROL may have breached this licence
condition. Again this is only an opinion based on observations of the
material available. I'm not a lawyer and I may have misinterpreted some
of the terms and definitions, or there may have been later
agreements/amendments which Aaron has not shown us. I would certainly
welcome it if a ROL representative could help shed some light on this.
Aaron
<snip>
> As such, while the document will be interesting and give everyone who reads
> (and is capable of understanding) it a /potentially/ better grasp on the
> terms of RISCOS Ltd's original licence than one based on speculation and
> interpretation of comments made in press releases, annual reports, etc.,
> there is still going to be room for error.
Indeed and I agree. However the really important stuff is present and
allows people to get a better handle on things.
The important clauses are all present. I draw your attention to the
following:
3.1 c i - target markets. This is the clause that prevents both
parties
operating in the same market area.
3.6 a ii - ownership. This is the clause that grants RISCOS Ltd
ownership
of derivative works (which is defined). The key point is the 4 year
period.
As with most legal documents a notepad and pen plus a couple of read
throughs help.
Aaron
Rob Kendrick
Aaron <atim...@aol.com> wrote:
> As with most legal documents a notepad and pen plus a couple of read
> throughs help.
As does having the whole document, and any past or future agreements it
may refer to, build upon, or be dissolved by.
B.
Aaron
> On 25/02/2010 12:04, Aaron wrote:
>
> > I will repeat:
>
> > Castle *do not* have any rights to grant licences for RISC OS.
> > The rights for thin clients/STBs rest with Pace.
> > The rights for anything else rest with RISCOS Ltd
>
> of knowingly acting illegally?
Are you saying that ROOL *did* know that Castle did not have any
rights to
grant licences?
ROOL obviously have a "comfort letter" from Castle Technology Ltd
stating
that Castle have the right to grant licences and also providing ROOL
with
full indemnity against any third party licence breaches. You would
have
to be nuts to release source code you don't own without these.
However you do seem to have missed the point by a country mile. This
is about
fixing problems so they don't come back and mess things up.
As it stands RISC OS 5 is severely hampered. Firstly by the
restrictive
"Shared Source Licence". Secondly by the fact that there will never be
any commercial licences granted by Castle.
If you think about it, it's not actual in my business interest to fix
these.
So why am I trying to? Answer, it would be good for RISC OS as a
whole.
Aaron
Aaron
> Andrew Hodgkinson <ahodg...@rowing.org.uk> wrote:
> > On 25/02/2010 12:04, Aaron wrote:
>
> > > I will repeat:
>
> > > Castle *do not* have any rights to grant licences for RISC OS. The
> > > rights for thin clients/STBs rest with Pace. The rights for anything
> > > else rest with RISCOS Ltd
>
> > So you do confirm that are indeed accusing in public ROOL and its members
> > of knowingly acting illegally?
>
> I don't think that is what Aaron has said. ROOL presumably acted in good
> faith but were given a 'licence' by someone who has no right to grant it.
Thank you Ray, perfectly put.
> However 'good faith' doesn't make the use of the software legal.
Nor, does it make it "illegal". Licences are a civil matter, not a
criminal one.
Aaron
Rob Kendrick
Aaron <atim...@aol.com> wrote:
(I have reflowed Aaron's broken wrapping.)
> On Feb 25, 1:38�pm, Andrew Hodgkinson <ahodg...@rowing.org.uk> wrote:
> > On 25/02/2010 12:04, Aaron wrote:
> >
> > > I will repeat:
> >
> > > Castle *do not* have any rights to grant licences for RISC OS.
> > > The rights for thin clients/STBs rest with Pace.
> > > The rights for anything else rest with RISCOS Ltd
> >
> > So you do confirm that are indeed accusing in public ROOL and its
> > members of knowingly acting illegally?
>
> Are you saying that ROOL *did* know that Castle did not have any
> rights to grant licences?
It doesn't look like it to me. It looks like Andrew's asking
confirmation of what you said.
<snip>
> As it stands RISC OS 5 is severely hampered. Firstly by the restrictive
> "Shared Source Licence".
And ROL's OS is hampered by its even more restrictive closed approach.
> Secondly by the fact that there will never be any commercial
> licences granted by Castle.
It's impossible for us to know that.
> If you think about it, it's not actual in my business interest to fix
> these. So why am I trying to? Answer, it would be good for RISC OS
> as a whole.
Beyond trying to "fix" this by accusing ROOL and CTL of having no
rights, what do you think could be done to move RISC OS forward?
B.
Mike Clark
Simon Willcocks <simon.w...@t-online.de> wrote:
> In message <v7fhn.145692$UQ6....@newsfe04.ams2>
> Andrew Hodgkinson <ahod...@rowing.org.uk> wrote:
>
> > I am for numerous reasons absolutely and utterly satisfied that CTL
> > is entirely legally entitled to licence to ROOL the source code you
> > can find available on the ROOL site.
>
> You know, had I made a statement like that, don't you think you'd have
> dismissed it as "opinion"? After all, Aaron appears to be
> absolutely and utterly satisfied" of the opposite.
>
> I was hoping Rob or Vince would jump in, but since they seem to have
> missed it, I'll ask instead: what are these numerous reasons, and what
> is the evidence that they are based on?
>
> Simon
>
The above statement by Andrew Hodgkinson is very precisely worded and
doesn't really take the matter any further or resolve anything. As I've
pointed out the Castle Licence that accompanies the source code on the
ROOL site has a very big disclaimer about any third party rights. So in
essence it's quite possible that ROOL have a legitimate right from
Castle to put the source code on the website but that still doesn't mean
that anyone else can use it for a practical application without
infringing third party rights.
Essentially Castle in that public licence aren't offering licensees any
warranties against claims made by third parties. If somebody uses the
code and then finds they are liable to pay a third party a licence fee
they are on their own.
What the licence clearly does do is say that Castle will happily grab
back for their own use any development work done on the sources and in
demanding the waiver of "moral rights" over the work they don't even
need to acknowledge (let alone offer payment to) anyone who contributed
any improvements.
So far I've seen nothing put into the public domain that counts as a
knockout blow for one side over the other.
Mike
--
o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark
<\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing,
"> || _`\<,_ |__\ \> | reader in immunology, antibody engineer and
` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user" http://www.antibody.me.uk/
charles
<12f4c7de-bea4-47b2...@d27g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>, Aaron
<atim...@aol.com> wrote:
You have a very narrow interpretation of the word "legal". Most lawyers
would consider that a breach of civil law is an illegal act - you can't go
to prison for it, though.
--
From KT24
Using a RISC OS computer running v5.16
Ray Dawson
> Aaron recently said: "the whole aim of RISCOS Ltd is to keep RISC OS
> alive."
>
> Allow me to be the first to congratulate the members of ROL on the
> wonderful job they've done. Last one out, please switch off the lights.
Well, ROL HAVE kept RISC OS alive so far. Without them there would have been
a lot less users of Risc PCs still around and, probably, Virtual Acorn
wouldn't have progressed to the extent it has.
Castle made a quick buck from the Iyonix and they seem to have fled the
market now that there aren't any more pickings.
ROOL is the natural way forward now, once the status of their licence is
established, and I would have thought cooperation with ROL would be more
productive than the current situation.
But what do I know.
Cheers,
Ray D
Andrew Hodgkinson
> Castle made a quick buck from the Iyonix and they seem to have fled the
> market now that there aren't any more pickings.
CTL have their faults but your claim is quite strange given the history.
CTL sold the Iyonix for almost six years (Dec '02 - Sep '08). The Risc PC
was around for only about four years and would have ceased in 1998 had
CTL not picked it up, continuing to spend time and money developing
things like the Kinetic card in 2000. CTL production of the Risc PC ended
in 2003. The Iyonix was killed by the introduction of the RoHS Directive.
Changes to the Iyonix for RoHS compliance and considerations of an Iyonix
2 were made - I worked for the Tematic part of CTL and was involved in
these discussions - but it was simply not financially viable. The market
was far too small to come even *close* to a profit. We all wanted to do
it but couldn't afford to. It was very depressing.
Take a look at the Iyonix mailing list. Clearly the machine is still well
supported by CTL. ROOL's "official" RISC OS releases are tested by CTL,
not ROOL. And how much money do CTL get for that effort? Not one penny.
If CTL had "fled the market", you would have no CTL posts to the Iyonix
mailing list - indeed, no mailing list at all unless a third party set
one up - and no official, tested RISC OS ROM after 5.13.
Ste (news)
Mike Clark <mrc7-...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> Essentially Castle in that public licence aren't offering licensees any
> warranties against claims made by third parties. If somebody uses the
> code and then finds they are liable to pay a third party a licence fee
> they are on their own.
A perfectly reasonable measure to take, given the long and spotty 20 year
plus history of the RISC OS sources. We at ROOL have been spending years
just working through it trying to ensure we're 100% happy with everything we
do publish - but you can't blame Castle for covering their back.
> What the licence clearly does do is say that Castle will happily grab
> back for their own use any development work done on the sources and in
> demanding the waiver of "moral rights" over the work they don't even
> need to acknowledge (let alone offer payment to) anyone who contributed
> any improvements.
Right, which is pretty much what the GPL would also do; if you use GPL code,
all your derivative work then also has to be published under the GPL and the
person who published it in the first place can take your work and use it
themself. OK - that's a gross simplification but covers the main points.
Another thing Castle were trying to avoid was pollution of the RISC OS
source code base with other people's IPR that those people then start
charging everyone royalties upon. They also want to shift the liability for
people who submit other people's IPR without permission onto the people who
submitted it.
All fairly sensible.
> So far I've seen nothing put into the public domain that counts as a
> knockout blow for one side over the other.
Agreed. Because that is the one thing which is NOT POSSIBLE TO DO HERE.
If somebody wants to settle the dispute, either they have to stop kicking
over dustbins and start holding constructive dialogue between the main
parties (Castle and ROL) or they need to settle it in court.
Or they could continue sparking eternal, unresolvable flamewars in the tiny,
irrelevant backwaters of the Internet.
Steve
--
Steve Revill @ Home
Note: All opinions expressed herein are my own.
Rob Kendrick
"Ste (news)" <st...@revi11.plus.com> wrote:
> > What the licence clearly does do is say that Castle will happily
> > grab back for their own use any development work done on the
> > sources and in demanding the waiver of "moral rights" over the work
> > they don't even need to acknowledge (let alone offer payment to)
> > anyone who contributed any improvements.
>
> Right, which is pretty much what the GPL would also do; if you use
> GPL code, all your derivative work then also has to be published
> under the GPL and the person who published it in the first place can
> take your work and use it themself. OK - that's a gross
> simplification but covers the main points.
Not quite; the GPL requires that even the originator of the project
must obey the GPL on any third-party contributions. Castle's shared
source licence essentially means that third-party contributors lose
their rights over it, giving Castle the right to do anything they like
with them.
> Another thing Castle were trying to avoid was pollution of the RISC OS
> source code base with other people's IPR that those people then start
> charging everyone royalties upon.
This is sensible, but RISC OS has historically incorporated other
people's IPR anyway. But the only protection you get from this is over
copyrights, not patents for example, where the problem still exists.
<snip>
> > So far I've seen nothing put into the public domain that counts as a
> > knockout blow for one side over the other.
>
> Agreed. Because that is the one thing which is NOT POSSIBLE TO DO
> HERE.
>
> If somebody wants to settle the dispute, either they have to stop
> kicking over dustbins and start holding constructive dialogue between
> the main parties (Castle and ROL) or they need to settle it in court.
I agree.
B.
Mike Clark
"Ste (news)" <st...@revi11.plus.com> wrote:
> In article <903aa5ef50....@mrc7acorn1.path.cam.ac.uk>,
> Mike Clark <mrc7-...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> > Essentially Castle in that public licence aren't offering licensees
> > any warranties against claims made by third parties. If somebody
> > uses the code and then finds they are liable to pay a third party a
> > licence fee they are on their own.
>
> A perfectly reasonable measure to take, given the long and spotty 20
> year plus history of the RISC OS sources. We at ROOL have been
> spending years just working through it trying to ensure we're 100%
> happy with everything we do publish - but you can't blame Castle for
> covering their back.
I agree it could be argued as a sensible precaution. The point I was
making however is that as a published legal document it doesn't help
resolve the ambiguity that exists based on the other publically
available claims and documents.
>
> > What the licence clearly does do is say that Castle will happily
> > grab back for their own use any development work done on the sources
> > and in demanding the waiver of "moral rights" over the work they
> > don't even need to acknowledge (let alone offer payment to) anyone
> > who contributed any improvements.
>
> Right, which is pretty much what the GPL would also do; if you use GPL
> code, all your derivative work then also has to be published under the
> GPL and the person who published it in the first place can take your
> work and use it themself. OK - that's a gross simplification but
> covers the main points.
Yes but a waiver of "moral rights" goes beyond what is necessary to
have rights of use, sale and redistribution. To take as an example, if I
asked Terry Prachett to waive his "moral rights" over a novel, I could
publish it under my own name and claim authorship for myself.
>
> Another thing Castle were trying to avoid was pollution of the RISC OS
> source code base with other people's IPR that those people then start
> charging everyone royalties upon. They also want to shift the
> liability for people who submit other people's IPR without permission
> onto the people who submitted it.
>
> All fairly sensible.
>
For example you mean if code from RISC OS select, or a RISC OS Select
feature, was merged into RISC OS 5.0 by a third party contributor?
> > So far I've seen nothing put into the public domain that counts as a
> > knockout blow for one side over the other.
>
> Agreed. Because that is the one thing which is NOT POSSIBLE TO DO HERE.
Yes but doesn't stop a lot of people over interpreting what has been
said and published.
>
> If somebody wants to settle the dispute, either they have to stop
> kicking over dustbins and start holding constructive dialogue between
> the main parties (Castle and ROL) or they need to settle it in court.
My own view from what I can see in the public domain and knowledge of
other complex IPR issues is that there isn't enough money in the RISC OS
scene to make it worthwhile paying the tens, perhaps hundreds of
thousands of pounds to take this to court.
The best solution would definitely be to have a joint agreement that
supersedes all previous agreements and that is signed up to by all
parties to the various claims. Since this is after all a civil dispute
settling it in a civil manner would be the best way forward.
>
> Or they could continue sparking eternal, unresolvable flamewars in the
> tiny, irrelevant backwaters of the Internet.
>
> Steve
>
Yes that is always a possibility ;-)
Peter Naulls
> In article <903aa5ef50....@mrc7acorn1.path.cam.ac.uk>,
> Mike Clark <mrc7-...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>> Essentially Castle in that public licence aren't offering licensees any
>> warranties against claims made by third parties. If somebody uses the
>> code and then finds they are liable to pay a third party a licence fee
>> they are on their own.
>
> A perfectly reasonable measure to take, given the long and spotty 20 year
> plus history of the RISC OS sources. We at ROOL have been spending years
> just working through it trying to ensure we're 100% happy with everything we
> do publish - but you can't blame Castle for covering their back.
>
>> What the licence clearly does do is say that Castle will happily grab
>> back for their own use any development work done on the sources and in
>> demanding the waiver of "moral rights" over the work they don't even
>> need to acknowledge (let alone offer payment to) anyone who contributed
>> any improvements.
>
> Right, which is pretty much what the GPL would also do; if you use GPL code,
> all your derivative work then also has to be published under the GPL and the
> person who published it in the first place can take your work and use it
> themself. OK - that's a gross simplification but covers the main points.
There are actually some significant differences in the GPL in practice, but
we needn't go into those here. I've taken various informal polls, and I don't
think that anyone thinks that GPL is a good idea for the RISC OS sources -
MIT would be best seems to be the wide-spread answer. Anyway, whilst Mike's
analysis is correct, I would note that the CTL license is actually pretty
typical of non-free source licenses where companies want to be able
to assert control - MS for example have something very similar, this
is sometimes seen in driver reference code and other relatively low-level
stuff.
Ben Avison
wrote:
> My guess is that whoever copied this document scanned only the bits that
> he felt were relevant. No doubt the conspiracy theorists will wish to
> try to
> say that something significant has been left out but I can't see
> anything.
You obviously missed:
* the clauses stating that the document itself is confidential (that would
be
self-incriminating, wouldn't it?)
* the conditions under which the licence can be terminated
* the effects of such termination
All rather significant, I'd say.
Ben
Rob Kendrick
Aaron <atim...@aol.com> wrote:
> Castle *do not* have any rights to grant licences for RISC OS.
Quick thought: One assumes by your assertions that anybody who wanted
to ship RISC OS 5 with a desktop product would need to obtain a licence
from ROL. By CTL's assertions, they'd need to obtain one from them.
One would hope that for a licensee, simply obtaining licences from both
would hedge their bets. One could then later sue one of the providers
for selling them a licence for which they had no right to do so if this
mess was ever sorted out :)
One would also assume that such a licence from ROL would be
inexpensive, given hardly any of the IP they developed (and thus had a
direct cost to them) would be used.
Aaron/Paul: Do you know how much such a licence would cost from ROL? A
solution to the current problem that doesn't require either parties to
agree who owns it is for them to create an IPR pool, where licence fees
are split between them. On the face of it, this sounds like a nice
compromise to allow RISC OS to move forward while this situation is
still unclear.
B.
Simon Willcocks
"Ben Avison" <usenet...@avison.me.uk> wrote:
I'd be interested to know what the "dispute procedures" were, as well.
Ben Avison
> 3.6 a ii - ownership. This is the clause that grants RISCOS Ltd
> ownership of derivative works (which is defined). The key point is the 4
> year period.
Let's look at the whole of section 3.6(a), not just 3.6(a)(ii). There are
long sentences and big words there, so I'll break it down into small parts.
The original text is left-aligned, my comments are indented. For E14, we
should read "E14 Ltd, later, Pace, later Castle" (note, E14 PLC did not
exist at the time the licence was drafted and has never had anything to do
with RISC OS).
3.6(a)(i)
E14 (or its licensors)
Thereby acknowledging that some of the Software is licensed to E14 by
(for example) FreeBSD or ARM and is not within E14's power to transfer
ownership thereof.
retain all rights (including but not limited to all Intellectual Rights)
title and interest in the Software
Where "Software" means the source code supplied to ROL and all derivative
works - for the long explanation of derivative works, see the definitions
section.
including [...] all Derivative Works
In the definition of "Software" but repeated here for clarity.
[inside the "[...]" above] without limiting the generality of the foregoing
subject only to Clause 3.6(a)(ii)
So this statement applies to all Derivative Works, with the exception
of those described by Clause 3.6(a)(ii), if that clause holds.
Licensee agrees to execute (in recordable form where appropriate) any
instruments and/or documents as E14 may reasonably request to verify and
maintain E14's (or its licensors') ownership of the said rights or to
transfer any part of the same which may vest in the Licensee for any
reason.
So ROL mustn't do anything which might affects E14's rights, and must
confirm as much if requested. They also should not claim to the contrary
(say, by removing Acorn's copyright notices). This also means they must
admit that full ownership of the derivative works has passed back to E14
(and its licensors) in the event that the licence is terminated, a fact
which can be concluded from 3.6(a)(ii) if the licence is terminated for
certain reasons, but which is made more general by certain other clauses
which were not present in the leaked document.
3.6(a)(ii)
Notwithstanding the provisions of Clause 3.6(a)(i)
So 3.6(a)(ii) overrides 3.6(a)(i) - but note there are capitalised
PROVIDED and PROVIDED FURTHER subclauses coming up, so this is
conditional.
but subject to E14's (or its licensor's) ownership of the underlying
intellectual therein
Rights, title or interest in the software provided from E14 to ROL
(commonly known as RISC OS 3.8) is not affected, leaving only the rights
regarding the differences ROL makes.
Licensee shall retain all right, title and interest in any Derivative Works
lawfully created by the Licensee
These rights have been pared down by preceding clauses to only refer
to the right, title and interest in the changes made by ROL to RISC OS
3.8,
not to RISC OS 3.8 itself. It also makes no statement about derivative
works of ROL's Derivate Work (that comes later in the Clause). If ROL
should make any modifications unlawfully, then clause 3.6(a)(i) applies
and all rights in those modifications vest in E14.
(or a subcontractor of Licensee engaged in accordance with (and pursuant
to)
Clause 3.1 (a)(viii))
Derivative Works created by ROL's subcontractors are included in the
above.
pursuant to the express terms of this Agreement
Any past or future agreements which might come into existence are not
affected.
and the provisions of Clause 3.6(a)(i) shall not apply thereto PROVIDED
that
Here come the preconditions for ROL's meagre rights...
Licensee shall as soon as practicable provide E14 with a copy of each
Derivative Work (including Source Code) it(and/or its subcontractors)
creates
during the Four (4) year period which follows the Effective Date
So E14 requires a copy of the first four years of ROL's changes,
delivered
promptly. This does not say anything about rights, title and interest
changing after those four years. But just having a copy of the sources is
useless without the right to use them, so here comes the other
precondition:
and PROVIDED FURTHER that E14 shall have a non-exclusive
so ROL is still permitted to distribute to the public, obviously
perpetual, royalty free licence
so E14 never have to pay ROL for the code that's passed back
to use, exploit and sublicence the use of all Derivative Works supplied to
it
as aforesaid
so E14 can basically whatever it wants with ROL's first four years' worth
of changes to RISC OS 3.8, short of claiming it made those changes
itself.
Without the existence of this unwritten licence from ROL to E14 for use
of
ROL's modifications, Clause 3.6(a)(ii) would be voided and Clause
3.6(a)(i)
would come into effect, granting E14 all rights, title and interest in
ROL's modifications anyway!
Now, congratulations to anyone who stuck with me through that. I may not be
a lawyer, but the number of misinterpretations that would be necessary in
the above for it to actually mean ownership of RISC OS 3.8 and all its
derivatives (as you have claimed more specifically elsewhere) is
transferred
to ROL after a period of 4 years is staggering.
If this is evidence of the level at which ROL can grasp a legal document,
I shudder to think what they must make of something really complicated,
like,
say, the RISC OS source code.
Ben
All legal interpretation is my own opinion, IANAL etc.
druck
> If you think about it, it's not actual in my business interest to fix
> these.
How about actually spelling out what your business interest is?
> So why am I trying to? Answer, it would be good for RISC OS as a
> whole.
It's hard to think of anything that could do more damage to RISC OS than
your current campaign of false claims and FUD.
---druck
Ben Avison
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010, I wrote:
> (note, E14 PLC did not exist at the time the licence was drafted and has
> never had anything to do with RISC OS).
I am of course talking about E14 Inc here, not E14 PLC. There is no E14 PLC
TTBOMK. E14 Inc was the management buyout that was formed at the time of
the
break-up of Acorn, and which was later bought by Broadcom. E14 Inc is a
separate legal entity from E14 Ltd (which was just a renamed Acorn
Computers
Ltd).
Wouldn't want to muddy those particular waters any more than they already
are!
Ben
druck
> Let's look at the whole of section 3.6(a), not just 3.6(a)(ii).
[Snip licence terms and accurate interpretations.]
> Now, congratulations to anyone who stuck with me through that. I may not be
> a lawyer, but the number of misinterpretations that would be necessary in
> the above for it to actually mean ownership of RISC OS 3.8 and all its
> derivatives (as you have claimed more specifically elsewhere) is
> transferred to ROL after a period of 4 years is staggering.
That's because the 'misinterpretation' is deliberate and fraudulent.
> If this is evidence of the level at which ROL can grasp a legal document,
> I shudder to think what they must make of something really complicated,
> like, say, the RISC OS source code.
But the fact is during the 4 years ROL were working under this licence,
both Paul Middleton and Justin Flecther understood the constraints and
obligations of the licence perfectly, and bitched about them to me on
regular basis while worked with them as both a developer and reporter
for the ARM Club magazine.
It was not until Aaron became involved, and Paul Middleton dropped his
objections to Virtual Acorn, which he had always deemed to be in
violation of ROLs licence, did this nonsense attacking Castle and RISC
OS 5over the "secret licensing documents start".
Aaron obviously feels that now with the head licence no longer in the
hands of Pace who have him dangling from financial gibbet for uttering
such claims, but instead owned by a depleted Castle, he is free to make
up complete fantasies about the licence terms without fear of legal
recourse. He has moved beyond vague accusations of exclusive desktop
licences, to the wilful falsehood of claiming full ownership of RISC OS
and all derivative works.
This will end in tears, of that alone Aaron can be assured.
---druck
druck
> "19th May 2003: Select 3 Issue 1 available for Download". That puts it
> just outside the 4 year span assuming the date on the Select web page is
> correct. OTOH Select 2 Issue 3 is easily inside, at November 2002 and as
> you point out, apparently no code beyond 4.02 was fed back.
Between Select 2 and 3, is the point which PM always claimed they could
stop feeding code back.
> AFAIAA Select releases are softload ROM components provided as part of a
> hard disc image with a softload tool which runs when the machine powers
> up, boots from its internal ROM and starts running the hard disc based
> boot sequence.
>
> http://www.riscos.info/index.php/RISC_OS_FAQ
>
> In the document Aaron supplied, you will note section 3.1(b)(v) on page
> 5 where it states clearly that ROM components may not be distributed as
> part of a disc image.
>
> That seems quite harsh because it means in practice the only way for ROL
> to release updates to existing machines is via ROM chips, some kind of
> dedicated Flash ROM and programmer tool (c.f. Iyonix) on e.g. a CD, or
> on physical media to AMSs who in turn supply ROMs/Flash. That's quite
> cumbersome and expensive. Nonetheless, those appear to be the terms.
That's why the Select scheme was set up as an extended beta test
programme for the softloads, and point releases could only be sold as ROMs.
> It would seem to me, given the way Select was released and given the
> leaked document from Aaron, that ROL may have breached this licence
> condition.
ROL was perfectly aware of their licence conditions, and as far as I
knew at the time, were fulfilling them during the 4 year period. The
things which have changed since are:-
1) Head licence no longer owned by a company that would take legal
action to enforce the licence terms, which would result in the
annihilation of ROL.
2) Aaron became involved with ROL.
Make your own conclusions.
---druck
Simon Willcocks
druck <ne...@druck.org.uk> wrote:
> Ben Avison wrote:
> > Let's look at the whole of section 3.6(a), not just 3.6(a)(ii).
>
> [Snip licence terms and accurate interpretations.]
>
> [Aaron] has moved beyond vague accusations of exclusive desktop
> licences, to the wilful falsehood of claiming full ownership of RISC OS
> and all derivative works.
Can I ask, though, what is the basis of the argument that the Iyonix doesn't
fall under the exclusive desktop licence?
Don't you have to argue that the RPC and the Iyonix were in different
markets, despite all their similarities, their being sold side by side and
the general impression that the one was the successor to the other?
Simon
druck
> In message <4B8852F3...@druck.org.uk>
> druck <ne...@druck.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> Ben Avison wrote:
>>> Let's look at the whole of section 3.6(a), not just 3.6(a)(ii).
>> [Snip licence terms and accurate interpretations.]
>>
>> [Aaron] has moved beyond vague accusations of exclusive desktop
>> licences, to the wilful falsehood of claiming full ownership of RISC OS
>> and all derivative works.
>
> Can I ask, though, what is the basis of the argument that the Iyonix doesn't
> fall under the exclusive desktop licence?
Any exclusivity was limited to the initial 4 year period while ROL were
submitting changes back to the head licensor. After that they retained
IPR in their newly created own work, and had to fend for themselves -
but were still bound by the other licence conditions regarding
derivative works of the RISC OS codebase.
> Don't you have to argue that the RPC and the Iyonix were in different
> markets, despite all their similarities, their being sold side by side and
> the general impression that the one was the successor to the other?
Not at all, after 4 years the owner of the head licence, then Pace, was
free to grant further licences in whatever markets wished.
---druck
David Holden
On 27-Feb-2010, druck <ne...@druck.org.uk> wrote:
> Simon Willcocks wrote:
> >
> > Can I ask, though, what is the basis of the argument that the Iyonix
> > doesn't fall under the exclusive desktop licence?
>
> Any exclusivity was limited to the initial 4 year period while ROL were
> submitting changes back to the head licensor. After that they retained
> IPR in their newly created own work, and had to fend for themselves -
> but were still bound by the other licence conditions regarding
> derivative works of the RISC OS codebase.
>
> > Don't you have to argue that the RPC and the Iyonix were in different
> > markets, despite all their similarities, their being sold side by side
> > and the general impression that the one was the successor to the other?
>
> Not at all, after 4 years the owner of the head licence, then Pace, was
> free to grant further licences in whatever markets wished.
Rubbish The Exclusive Target Markets clause is not time limited. If you
insist it's otherwise please cite your reasons and why you think your
opinion is more authoritive than that of ROL, Pace and Castle's legal
advisors?
--
David Holden - APDL - <http://www.apdl.co.uk>
Russell Hafter News
> On 27-Feb-2010, druck <ne...@druck.org.uk> wrote:
In article <7us611...@mid.individual.net>, David Holden
<Spa...@apdl.co.uk> wrote:
> > Not at all, after 4 years the owner of the head
> > licence, then Pace, was free to grant further licences
> > in whatever markets wished.
> Rubbish The Exclusive Target Markets clause is not time
> limited. If you insist it's otherwise please cite your
> reasons and why you think your opinion is more
> authoritive than that of ROL, Pace and Castle's legal
> advisors?
I wonder - is there any way in which this not very edifying
discussion could be taken to a mailing list somewhere?
a) It would no longer be in a public forum, which is
probably to everyone's advantage - certainly RISC OSs
b) For the many of us who long stopped either knowing or
caring, there would be fewer distractions without having to
actually killfile the threads.
--
Russell
http://www.russell-hafter-holidays.co.uk
Russell Hafter Holidays E-mail to enquiries at our domain
Need a hotel? <http://www.hrs.com/?client=en__blue&customerId=416873103>
Vince M Hudd
> On 27-Feb-2010, druck <ne...@druck.org.uk> wrote:
[...]
> > Not at all, after 4 years the owner of the head licence, then Pace, was
> > free to grant further licences in whatever markets wished.
> Rubbish The Exclusive Target Markets clause is not time limited. If you
> insist it's otherwise please cite your reasons and why you think your
> opinion is more authoritive than that of ROL, Pace and Castle's legal
> advisors?
Based on an more detailed read through[1] than I had previously given it, I
have to say Dave does appear at the moment to be correct. (Taking the
"Exclusive Target Markets" clause to mean 3.1(c) - which does have relevance
to the arguments about the Iyonix itself, but that's subject to the footnote
at[1] and not what I'm commenting on here.)
The "intitial term" is defined as four years, but that does appear to only
be a condition of the use of the core trademark (ie "RISC OS") in the form
of the company name ("RISCOS Ltd"), domain name ("riscos.com") and on any
literature. (The initial term is defined in 3.2(a)(iii) and only referred to
in 3.2
Of particular note is that use of the term "RISC OS" in this way beyond the
four year mark was conditional upon them notifying the licensor in writing
(E14 at the time the licence was written and granted; possibly CTL at the
point defined in the licence) 6 months before the end of that term - so,
unless RISCOS Ltd did that, they are in breach of 3.2(a).
That ties neatly in with my recollection that one of the outcomes of the
meeting with CTL some years ago that RISCOS Ltd were to change their name to
RISC OS Developments Ltd (or something similar) - which never happened.
However, in addition, that the initial term does indeed appear to only apply
to the above then by pointing it out, Dave has also pointed out some errors
in Aaron's claims.
Of course, this is all subject to the footnote referenced in my first
sentence:
[1] Though, I stress, still not as detailed as I'd like, and I maintain my
position on drawing absolute conclusions from incomplete documentation
(which means not just that this document is incomplete, but also that this
is just one document of many).
--
Vince M Hudd ::: Soft Rock Software
http://misc.vinceh.com ::: http://www.softrock.co.uk
Is there any scope for a new Bristol RISC OS user group?
See: http://www.riscository.com
Vince M Hudd
As expected, upon re-reading I spotted a mistake in what I wrote.
> Of particular note is that use of the term "RISC OS" in this way beyond
> the four year mark was conditional upon them notifying the licensor in
> writing (E14 at the time the licence was written and granted; possibly CTL
> at the point defined in the licence) 6 months before the end of that term
> - so, unless RISCOS Ltd did that,
...and the licensor agreed (which the licence states there will be no
unreasonable refusal)...
> they are in breach of 3.2(a).
I thought I'd clarify what I meant there, otherwise I could have been saying
all they had to do was write and say:
"We're going to carry on using it. So ner ner. :p"
:)
David Holden
On 27-Feb-2010, Vince M Hudd <sp...@softrock.co.uk> wrote:
> Of particular note is that use of the term "RISC OS" in this way beyond
> the
> four year mark was conditional upon them notifying the licensor in writing
> (E14 at the time the licence was written and granted; possibly CTL at the
> point defined in the licence) 6 months before the end of that term - so,
> unless RISCOS Ltd did that, they are in breach of 3.2(a).
Please check your datas. Castle didn't acquire any rights from Pace until
several months after the end of the Initial Term.
Aaron
I keep asking you to stop e-mailing me. I have no interest in
receiving
any communications from you. So can you please get in someone
who is familiar with computers to fix the problem(s) on your
machine(s).
Aaron
Vince M Hudd
I've been looking for some reference to VirtualAcorn and to Select in the
messages I've retained, but can't find the ones I was thinking of - so I'm
hanging this comment on the back of Druck's post.
This also relates to the comments I made in
<gemini.kyhxp90...@softrock.co.uk> - and I stress, again, that
my reading is STILL not as detailed as I'd like, and I'm still holding that
the document being itself incomplete and only one document out of many, and
that this incomplete nature could be important to any interpretation, etc
etc yada yada.
> It was not until Aaron became involved, and Paul Middleton dropped his
> objections to Virtual Acorn, which he had always deemed to be in violation
> of ROLs licence
My reading so far indicates that Paul's original objections to VA may have
been correct - and his subsequent licencing of VA may itself be a licence
violation for another reason.
Paul's objections might have been correct because VA could itself be a
breach of the so-called "Exclusive Target Market" clause - on the basis
that, IIRC, ATT Aaron claimed to have received permission from Pace.
Pace being the licensor at that time, would theoretically be subject to the
"E14 Restriction" defined at 3.1(c) - which limits who they could permit
(or, rather, grant a licence) to distribute the "Software" (the definition
of which in the context of this licence would be useful - and may be on page
1).
Equally, the Iyonix could possibly be subject to the same issue - but the
reverse is also true: Whatever put VirtulAcorn on the right side of the
licence might also apply to the Iyonix. This is all subject to paperwork we
can't see.
Getting back to what I was saying about VirtualAcorn, though: Subsequently,
with Aaron then having a licence from RISCOS Ltd, the latter would be in
breach of 3.1(a)(iv).
As for Select being labelled as "beta" class software until the end of the
four year term - okay; beta might be a workaround - but as per my other
post, as originally highlighted by Dave Holden, the four year term as
definied in the leaked document appears to only be applicable to the use of
the tradmark.
Furthermore:
3.1(b)(v):
"Licensee (and all Authorised Installation Sublicensees and all Authorised
Manufacturing Sublicensees) may only distribute the Core ROM Compononents as
part of a ROM Image - the Core ROM Components may NEVER be distributed as
part of a Disk Image"
Note the emphasised NEVER.
Okay, that says "ROM Image" - which it is. However, (iv) clarifies this,
specifying that the Software as a ROM Image "which contains the Core ROM
Components and is embedded on ROM". Twice.
Make of my conclusions what you will - but do bear in mind what I've said
about the documentation being incomplete, as well as that I still haven't
looked at this one document as deeply as I'd like.
Aaron
> On 27-Feb-2010, Vince M Hudd <s...@softrock.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Of particular note is that use of the term "RISC OS" in this way beyond
> > the
> > four year mark was conditional upon them notifying the licensor in writing
> > (E14 at the time the licence was written and granted; possibly CTL at the
> > point defined in the licence) 6 months before the end of that term - so,
> > unless RISCOS Ltd did that, they are in breach of 3.2(a).
>
> Please check your datas. Castle didn't acquire any rights from Pace until
> several months after the end of the Initial Term.
Indeed. Key dates are:
5th March 1999 - RISCOS Ltd signs licence with E14
30th Nov 2002 - Castle Technology Ltd launches Iyonix.
5th March 2003 - RISCOS Ltd gains ownership of RO 4.02 and above.
4th July 2003 - Castle purchases "RISC OS Technology" from Pace
As such the Iyonix was clearly launched inside the 4 year period.
Aaron
Vince M Hudd
Which is why I only specified E14 "at the time the licence was written" and
"possibly CTL at the point definied" - I realise Pace fell between
^^^^^^^^
them but wasn't sure of the dates.
If that permission was asked for (of Pace) and granted, this is just one
further set of documentation that we lack - a point I keep reiterating.
And now I'm late. Ho hum.
druck
You could always try answering the question, unless that is beyond you too.
---druck
Jess
Simon Willcocks <simon.w...@t-online.de> wrote:
> In message <4B8852F3...@druck.org.uk>
> druck <ne...@druck.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> Ben Avison wrote:
>> > Let's look at the whole of section 3.6(a), not just 3.6(a)(ii).
>>
>> [Snip licence terms and accurate interpretations.]
>>
>> [Aaron] has moved beyond vague accusations of exclusive desktop
>> licences, to the wilful falsehood of claiming full ownership of RISC OS
>> and all derivative works.
>
> Can I ask, though, what is the basis of the argument that the Iyonix doesn't
> fall under the exclusive desktop licence?
Because Castle already had an exception to that exclusivity.
I suspect everything would be fine if RO5 consisted solely of RO 3.8
and Pace work.
It does seem that if RO 5 contains ROL work that was handed back, it
would seem reasonable that exception should not apply in the target
market.
> Don't you have to argue that the RPC and the Iyonix were in different
> markets, despite all their similarities, their being sold side by side and
> the general impression that the one was the successor to the other?
I suspect this was a backup argument, to be rolled out if needed.
--
Jess Iyonix
Jess
Vince M Hudd <sp...@softrock.co.uk> wrote:
> druck <ne...@druck.org.uk> wrote:
[snip]
>> It was not until Aaron became involved, and Paul Middleton dropped his
>> objections to Virtual Acorn, which he had always deemed to be in violation
>> of ROLs licence
>
> My reading so far indicates that Paul's original objections to VA may have
> been correct - and his subsequent licencing of VA may itself be a licence
> violation for another reason.
>
> Paul's objections might have been correct because VA could itself be a
> breach of the so-called "Exclusive Target Market" clause - on the basis
> that, IIRC, ATT Aaron claimed to have received permission from Pace.
>
> Pace being the licensor at that time, would theoretically be subject to the
> "E14 Restriction" defined at 3.1(c) - which limits who they could permit
> (or, rather, grant a licence) to distribute the "Software" (the definition
> of which in the context of this licence would be useful - and may be on page
> 1).
What about the possibility that Pace granted the rights to VA in
error?
> Equally, the Iyonix could possibly be subject to the same issue - but the
> reverse is also true: Whatever put VirtulAcorn on the right side of the
> licence might also apply to the Iyonix. This is all subject to paperwork we
> can't see.
>
> Getting back to what I was saying about VirtualAcorn, though: Subsequently,
> with Aaron then having a licence from RISCOS Ltd, the latter would be in
> breach of 3.1(a)(iv).
Unless Pace modified the terms as a sensible solution for the problem.
It would explain the sudden disappearance of VA5000.
--
Jess Iyonix
druck
> Quick thought: One assumes by your assertions that anybody who wanted
> to ship RISC OS 5 with a desktop product would need to obtain a licence
> from ROL. By CTL's assertions, they'd need to obtain one from them.
> One would hope that for a licensee, simply obtaining licences from both
> would hedge their bets. One could then later sue one of the providers
> for selling them a licence for which they had no right to do so if this
> mess was ever sorted out :)
You can't do that Rob, the act of signing a licence with a party
confers legitimacy over the right of that party to issue the licence,
even where none exists.
It's a tatic that both SCO and Microsoft's have attempted to trick
Linux users in to signing licences to indemnify them against future
claims. It is both underhanded and without merit, but any one who
falls for such a ruse has to pursue legal action to extract themselves
from.
---druck
--
The ARM Club Free Software - http://www.armclub.org.uk/free/
32 bit Conversions Page - http://www.armclub.org.uk/32bit/
druck
wrote:
> I wonder - is there any way in which this not very edifying
> discussion could be taken to a mailing list somewhere?
That last thing we need is more whispering behind closed doors on a
restricted mailing list subject to interference. Claims have been made
in the public eye, that's where they have to be upheld or dismissed.
> a) It would no longer be in a public forum, which is
> probably to everyone's advantage - certainly RISC OSs
It's not like RISC OS has an reputation beyond a vague memory outside
this hierarchy.
> b) For the many of us who long stopped either knowing or
> caring, there would be fewer distractions without having to
> actually killfile the threads.
That's why your news reader has those facilities.
Ben Avison
<simon.w...@t-online.de> wrote:
> In message <4B8852F3...@druck.org.uk>
> druck <ne...@druck.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> Ben Avison wrote:
>> > Let's look at the whole of section 3.6(a), not just 3.6(a)(ii).
>>
>> [Snip licence terms and accurate interpretations.]
>>
>> [Aaron] has moved beyond vague accusations of exclusive desktop
>> licences, to the wilful falsehood of claiming full ownership of RISC OS
>> and all derivative works.
>
> Can I ask, though, what is the basis of the argument that the Iyonix
> doesn't fall under the exclusive desktop licence?
That has nothing to do with Aaron's claims that ROL owns RISC OS 3.8, which
is what I was discrediting. Even if there had been a violation of "E14"'s
obligations under the licence, this would not have granted ROL any rights
over RISC OS 3.8. I was also discrediting any complaints ROL might have
over
the use of any of ROL's first four years of changes to RISC OS 3.8 - there
are only two possibilities, either "E14" has free licence to use them as
they wish, or failing that they actually own them outright.
I would have hoped that the sheer hypocrisy in ROL's position would be
clear
to everyone by now. ROL has apparently violated many, many of their
obligations under the 1999 licence. The *only* "evidence" they have ever
been able to claim of a violation from the "E14" side is the release of the
Iyonix PC. I have always resisted the temptation to wade into that argument
because it hinges on documents that have not been made public, even after
this leak of the 1999 licence. Witness section 1.23 of the leak:
* The Iyonix PC was not a desktop computer created by E14.
* It's not one of the examples cited, the A7000/A7000+ or the Risc PC.
* It does not bear the Acorn brand.
To decide whether it would come under ROL's Target Market therefore hinges
on unpublished additional documents which 1.23 states "E14" may issue. Both
ROL and Castle have claimed, I believe, to have documents proving that the
Iyonix PC does or does not (respectively) fall into ROL's Target Market.
Neither one can be proved here in public - but given ROL's previous
duplicitous behaviour, which one do you believe?
However, even if we give ROL the benefit of the doubt here and say the
Iyonix PC was a licence violation, there are still two major problems for
ROL:
1) ROL had already, before the Iyonix PC's release, allegedly violated many
more of its obligations under the 1999 licence than "E14" had violated. The
licence was already terminated in spirit if not in writing by this point.
If
this were to come to court with the two parties counter-claiming for
damages, the balance of probabilities would be that ROL would lose.
2) The obligations on "E14" in the licence have no teeth. The only course
of
action available to ROL within the licence conditions in the event of a
violation by "E14" is to terminate the licence, which simply grants all
right, title and licence in ROL's modifications back to "E14".
Sadly, RISCOS Ltd have shown themselves to be very poor contract
negotiators, having repeatedly negotiated very weak positions for
themselves. RISCOS Ltd's position should only have been to stick as rigidly
to the terms of the licence as strictly as possible, in order to not give
the licensor any excuse to terminate it, because their rights in that
licence represented RISCOS Ltd's biggest asset - this they apparently did
not do. If I were a RISCOS Ltd shareholder I'd have demanded heads roll
years ago - after all, many investors sunk a considerable amount of money
into the initial set-up of the company.
The 2004 licence was a tremendous missed opportunity that could have
created
a merged RISC OS which is what most people want. However that was then and
this is now. Commentators on all sides now seem to be in agreement that
open
sourcing of the OS is the way forward. It is my personal opinion that the
thorn in Castle's side that is RISCOS Ltd is a major stumbling block to
Castle adopting a more liberal open source licence. Bearing that in mind,
then if "the whole aim of RISCOS Ltd is to keep RISC OS alive" as Aaron
says, then perhaps they should be asking themselves whether those aims
would
best be met by standing down and winding up the company, having first
passed
their sources to Castle, so they can be open sourced and merged with RISC
OS
5 by the community.
Dragging the same tired old arguments up every few months on public forums
is certainly not achieving those aims.
Ben
Ben Avison
> Tematic - wound up
Do you mean Tematic Ltd or Castle's Tematic division? Be specific. Tematic
Ltd merged with Castle, the Tematic division was never a separate legal
entity AFAIK.
> Iyonix Ltd - no longer trading
> Castle Technology Ltd - no longer trading
Evidence?
> and worse still
>
> Castle Technology Holdings Ltd (the company that was set
> up to hold the IPR) was struck off by Companies House
I don't know why you think that. I have had no visibility of Castle's
internal structure since I left their employ in 2005. However I strongly
doubt the RISC OS IPR has moved from Castle Technology Ltd - the capital
gains tax implications would be significant.
> what little rights CTIL did own might now actually belong to the
> Crown!
[...]
> If someone wants to come along and use RISC OS 5 with a product
> *they will never get a licence* because *CTL cannot issue one*
Very unlikely to be true.
Ben
Ben Avison
wrote:
> Rubbish The Exclusive Target Markets clause is not time limited.
On that, I agree with you. What is at issue is
* was the 1999 licence still in force in December 2002?
* was the Iyonix PC in the ROL Target Market at the time?
Some say yes, some say no. Neither can be proved in public, at least
without
more disclosure of confidential information.
Is ROL ever going to do anything about it if they think they have a valid
claim? If not, then please shut up.
Ben
Ben Avison
<usenet...@avison.me.uk> wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 09:13:05 -0000, David Holden <Spa...@apdl.co.uk>
> wrote:
>> Rubbish The Exclusive Target Markets clause is not time limited.
>
> On that, I agree with you.
Before anyone starts speculating on the impact of that upon current ROOL
activities, I should add that that exclusivity did not survive the
termination
of the 1999 licence. As evidenced by part of the 1999 licence which was
conveniently omitted from the leak. :(
Ben
Paul Stewart
> 3.1(b)(v):
> "Licensee (and all Authorised Installation Sublicensees and all Authorised
> Manufacturing Sublicensees) may only distribute the Core ROM Compononents as
> part of a ROM Image - the Core ROM Components may NEVER be distributed as
> part of a Disk Image"
> Note the emphasised NEVER.
From what I've heard on this. ROL have a letter from Pace giving them
the required authority to be able to do this.
Regards
--
Paul Stewart - Winslow, Buckingham, England.
(msn:pauls...@phawfaux.co.uk)
druck
> In message <gemini.kyi0no0...@softrock.co.uk>
> Vince M Hudd <sp...@softrock.co.uk> wrote:
>> 3.1(b)(v):
>> "Licensee (and all Authorised Installation Sublicensees and all Authorised
>> Manufacturing Sublicensees) may only distribute the Core ROM Compononents as
>> part of a ROM Image - the Core ROM Components may NEVER be distributed as
>> part of a Disk Image"
>> Note the emphasised NEVER.
> From what I've heard on this. ROL have a letter from Pace giving them
> the required authority to be able to do this.
A letter wouldn't be good enough, one party can't unilaterally change
the terms of a contract, even at the request of the other. It requires
the existing contract to be terminated, and a new one agreed to by
both parties.
Peter Campbell-Banks
"Ben Avison" <usenet...@avison.me.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 12:22:54 -0000, Aaron <atim...@aol.com> wrote:
>> Tematic - wound up
>
> Do you mean Tematic Ltd or Castle's Tematic division? Be specific. Tematic
> Ltd merged with Castle, the Tematic division was never a separate legal
> entity AFAIK.
The only Tematic Ltd on the Companies House Register, Company Number
04431264, registered at Comberton, Cambridge. CB23 was dissolved on
the 23/06/2009
>> Iyonix Ltd - no longer trading
on the register with number 05569912
>> Castle Technology Ltd - no longer trading,
still on register, with number 02824049
>> Castle Technology Holdings Ltd (the company that was set
>> up to hold the IPR) was struck off by Companies House
The records at Companies House state that Castle Technology Holdings
Ltd, Company Number 05108409, was dissolved on 08/09/2009
[snipped rest].
--
Peter Campbell-Banks,
Ramsgate,
Kent.
Simon Willcocks
"Ben Avison" <usenet...@avison.me.uk> wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 07:22:38 -0000, Simon Willcocks
> <simon.w...@t-online.de> wrote:
> > Can I ask, though, what is the basis of the argument that the Iyonix
> > doesn't fall under the exclusive desktop licence?
>
> That has nothing to do with Aaron's claims that ROL owns RISC OS 3.8, which
> is what I was discrediting. Even if there had been a violation of "E14"'s
> obligations under the licence, this would not have granted ROL any rights
> over RISC OS 3.8. I was also discrediting any complaints ROL might have
> over
> the use of any of ROL's first four years of changes to RISC OS 3.8 - there
> are only two possibilities, either "E14" has free licence to use them as
> they wish, or failing that they actually own them outright.
>
> I would have hoped that the sheer hypocrisy in ROL's position would be
> clear
> to everyone by now. ROL has apparently violated many, many of their
> obligations under the 1999 licence. The *only* "evidence" they have ever
> been able to claim of a violation from the "E14" side is the release of the
> Iyonix PC. I have always resisted the temptation to wade into that argument
> because it hinges on documents that have not been made public, even after
> this leak of the 1999 licence. Witness section 1.23 of the leak:
>
> * The Iyonix PC was not a desktop computer created by E14.
Didn't E14/Pace licence RISC OS to Castle for use in the Iyonix, then?
> * It's not one of the examples cited, the A7000/A7000+ or the Risc PC.
No new computer would have been, would it?
> * It does not bear the Acorn brand.
No new computer could have done, could it?
Are you suggesting that the intent of the original licence was to limit the
definition of the market to just the machines listed as examples? Computers
that were obsolete or that only Castle had the rights to manufacture at the
time? (IIRC, they had the rights to the Acorn brand at the time.)
That market definition wouldn't have included the RiscStation, Mico, Omega
or Imago, either.
I don't think that's a reasonable interpretation.
> To decide whether it would come under ROL's Target Market therefore hinges
> on unpublished additional documents which 1.23 states "E14" may issue. Both
> ROL and Castle have claimed, I believe, to have documents proving that the
> Iyonix PC does or does not (respectively) fall into ROL's Target Market.
I've not noticed a public claim by Castle to have documents proving that the
Iyonix PC does not fall into ROL's Target Market. Could you provide a link?
> Neither one can be proved here in public - but given ROL's previous
> duplicitous behaviour, which one do you believe?
Previous to date, or previous to October 2002? I'm keeping an open mind.
> However, even if we give ROL the benefit of the doubt here and say the
> Iyonix PC was a licence violation, there are still two major problems for
> ROL:
>
> 1) ROL had already, before the Iyonix PC's release, allegedly violated many
> more of its obligations under the 1999 licence than "E14" had violated.
What are they alledged to have done before October 2002? Can you be
specific? If not, can you at least say who made the allegations?
Gary Jones
Ollie Clark <use...@ollieclark.com> wrote:
> Aaron wrote:
>>
>> Because, you silly man, the whole aim of RISCOS Ltd is to keep RISC OS
>> alive.
> Alive, but not moving forward anymore. By your (ROL, not you personally)
> own admission, you can only produce it for 20 year old hardware and an
> emulator of that hardware.
So where does the A9home fit in to this?
> Given that, how do you think ROL can help RO move forward onto new
> hardware? Do they even want that or is their aim now just to sell
> it on VA and ever decreasing numbers of RPCs?
<speculation>
Is the non-appearance of OS updates due to the fact that ROL should
not have licensed RISC OS to Advantage6???
</speculation>
--
Gary Jones
Vince M Hudd
[Whether or not the Iyonix is a licence violation]
I'm posting this because it's been pointed out to me that although I've
briefly mentioned this in my other two main posts, I've concentrated on
commenting "against" RISCOS Ltd, thus appearing biased and acknowledging
this point but "brushing it under the carpet".
As ever, the main caveat is that this is based on a single, incomplete
document and knowing that there are other relevant documents I haven't seen
and I'm probably unlikely to.
[...]
> Pace being the licensor at that time, would theoretically be subject to
> the "E14 Restriction" defined at 3.1(c) - which limits who they could
> permit (or, rather, grant a licence) to distribute the "Software" (the
> definition of which in the context of this licence would be useful - and
> may be on page 1).
FWIW, the definition has been pointed out to me (I had overlooked 1.35 on
page 3, which refers to schedule 2 as a more complete definition; note my
comments in that post about my reading of the document, though!)
That reference to an additional document for a fuller description is to be
expected given the nature of "RISC OS".
> Equally, the Iyonix could possibly be subject to the same issue
And my conclusion is that RISCOS may have a valid argument against the
Iyonix.
My reasoning is pretty much the same as that for VirtualAcorn: that if Aaron
originally sought and was granted permission by Pace, then Pace were
potentially violating the licence in granting that permission - the same
would apply to CTL and the Iyonix, for whoever was the RISC OS "owner" at
the time.
The essence of my opinion hinges on the definition of the "Licensee Target
Market" (1.23 on page 2). 3.1(a) explains what RISCOS Ltd is permitted to do
with the "software", subject to 3.1(b) - which limits them to the defined
target market - and 3.1(c) then restricts "E14" from entering (or licensing
someone else within) that market, with one specified exception (Millipede).
I can't see how the Iyonix is justifiably outside of the target market
definied in that document - so ISTM that whoever authorised Castle's use of
RISC OS within the Iyonix would appear to have violated the licence. (In
fact, referring back to my comments about VirtualAcorn, I think Aaron would
have a better case arguing that VA is outside the target market than CTL
would arguing the Iyonix is - but I also think it's a thin line, especially
considering the way it has been marketted and sold pre-installed on Windows
machines by R-Comp).
However, to re-re-re-re-re-(etc)-iterate: this is based on this one
document, which we know to be incomplete, and my opinions and conclusions
are therefore obviously subject to what everything else that's relevant
actually says.
Vince M Hudd
> <speculation> Is the non-appearance of OS updates due to the fact that ROL
> should not have licensed RISC OS to Advantage6??? </speculation>
The leaked licence does indeed permit this (with appropriate restrictions -
obviously ROL can't grant permissions they don't themselves have). There is
absolutely no problem there based on that licence.
I'd reiterate what Aaron said when he posted the link to the leaked licence
agreement - which is basically to read that before commenting; doing so
would avoid posting complete red herrings such as that, which might create
another noisy subthread arguing over a non-issue. Let's *not* argue about
what might or might not be in any subsequent licence, contract or agreement
and for the moment keep to what ROL claims based on its *original* one.
Vince M Hudd
> And my conclusion is that RISCOS may have a valid argument against the
> Iyonix.
Gah! "RISCOS Ltd may have..." obviously.
[...]
> (In fact, referring back to my comments about VirtualAcorn, I think Aaron
> would have a better case arguing that VA is outside the target market than
> CTL would arguing the Iyonix is - but I also think it's a thin line,
> especially considering the way it has been marketted and sold
> pre-installed on Windows machines by R-Comp).
And Microdigital, way back when.
[...]
Andrew Hodgkinson
> [...] keep to what ROL claims based on its *original* one.
OK then, let's play Hypothetical Wonderland. Suppose the licence is
actually valid and ROL didn't sign a new one in the early 2000s. Further
suppose the licence had indeed been breached by the sale of the Iyonix
within the four year window.
First: Since in this hypothetical situation we are to confine ourselves
to just the ROL 'leak' document, then there are no other documents
granting any parties any other rights or exceptions. In this case ROL may
have breached the licence conditions on several counts, in for example
areas such as feeding back changes, not releasing ROM components as part
of a disc image and a possible grey area regarding VA. May have.
Second: Let's ignore this and assume they're completely compliant with
all licence conditions. So we're hypothesising that the old licence is
valid, ROL are compliant and the release of the Iyonix violated it.
What happens? Who can terminate what and how? What happens to ROL's
rights with regards to RISC OS components they had not modified, or RISC
OS components they had modified? What about those few components they
modified and fed back? Who owns what?
You'll need a leak of the termination clauses to answer that. I have this
funny feeling that this won't be forthcoming, because the answer would
not be too good for ROL. But hey, that's just an opinion.
--
TTFN, Andrew Hodgkinson
Find some electronic music at: Photos, wallpaper, software and more:
http://pond.org.uk/music.html http://pond.org.uk/
Vince M Hudd
> On 28/02/2010 13:07, Vince M Hudd wrote:
> > [...] keep to what ROL claims based on its *original* one.
> OK then, let's play Hypothetical Wonderland. Suppose the licence is
> actually valid and ROL didn't sign a new one in the early 2000s
This is interesting. Do you mean *prior* to the release of the Iyonix, or
subsequently to that? If, as I suspect, you mean the one in 2004 (IIRC
without looking back over the various discussions) then that's subsequently
- and doesn't change what appears to have been the case at the time of the
machine's release.
[...]
> First: Since in this hypothetical situation we are to confine ourselves
> to just the ROL 'leak' document, then there are no other documents
> granting any parties any other rights or exceptions.
That's not what I actually meant or implied, though - and neither is it,
re-reading what I wrote, what I actually *said*.
> In this case ROL may have breached the licence conditions on several
> counts, in for example areas such as feeding back changes, not releasing
> ROM components as part of a disc image and a possible grey area regarding
> VA. May have.
I agree - having pointed two of those out *myself*. Your objection (to what
I didn't say, mean or imply in my comment) is precisely why I keep stressing
and reiterating that:
* I am commenting on THAT document and THAT document alone
while
* I know full well THAT document is incomplete
and that
* I know full well there are OTHER documents that will have a bearing
[...]
What I will add, which I am *AGAIN* saying with the above caveats in mind,
is that the truth is where I've always suspected it to be. It's not *wholly*
what ROL claims, and it's not *wholly* what CTL says: it's somewhere in the
middle, but appears to be more notably in CTL's favour than ROL's.
IOW, I agree that on the face of it, the balance of possible violations lies
against ROL, just as I agree that *most* of what ROL claims *appears* to be
invalid. The *possible* Iyonix violation is the *one* argument I can see
which *might* have validity.
So do I *really* need to *emphasise* *every* *instance* of where I say that
things are a *possibility* or *might* *appear* to be so, and repeat even
more than I do already that my *opinions* are based on that *single*
document, which I *know* and *acknowledge* is itself *incomplete* and is
only *one* document of *many* in every bloody sentence, let alone every
post?
Bah humbug.