Violation of copyrights by Virtual Acorn
John Kortink
are being supplied with copies of Virtual A5000, a product of
Virtual Acorn (http://www.virtualacorn.co.uk).
Virtual Acorn are supplying my software illegally. Which may
come as no surprise looking at the recent controversy about
them supplying a free copy of RISC OS 3.11 as well, for which
they claim to have permission.
They certainly do not have mine. Nor, to add insult to injury,
have they ever sought it. My copyright rules specifically state
that my software may not be included in products without my
approval. There are good reasons for this. It is to prevent my
hard labour being abused only to help entice people buying said
products. As such, regardless of the proposed 'value' of the
mere side-effect of the software being distributed just a little
more (which is nill, and this is 15 years of experience talking),
it has a very clear commercial value, and, consequently, proper
negotiations are in order.
Virtual Acorn have only offered to remove my software from their
product, but will not recall and will continue to sell existing
copies of the CD-ROM that contain my software. They have declined
to solve this matter in any proper way, as I have kindly proposed.
The existing copies, either sold or waiting to be sold, of said
CD-ROM, are illegal. As such, a lawyer has advised me, they are
to be sent back to Virtual Acorn to be destroyed and replaced by
CD-ROMs that don't violate my (and probably many other authors')
copyrights. Failing to do this in a satisfactory way may result
in a criminal lawsuit against Virtual Acorn (for which I may have
to stand in line, by the looks of it, but I will).
Shareware and freeware authors that also mind their copyrights
being blatantly treaded on are advised to have a look at
http://www.virtualacorn.co.uk/hd.htm
to see if their software is among the supplied software.
John Kortink
Robert Hartley
> Translator, Creator and Earthmap, three applications of mine,
> are being supplied with copies of Virtual A5000, a product of
> Virtual Acorn (http://www.virtualacorn.co.uk).
>
> Virtual Acorn are supplying my software illegally. Which may
> come as no surprise looking at the recent controversy about
> them supplying a free copy of RISC OS 3.11 as well, for which
> they claim to have permission.
your SW and RISC OS 3.11 are different matters. However I would have
thought that they might have asked you first. good manners isn't it.
>
> They certainly do not have mine. Nor, to add insult to injury,
> have they ever sought it. My copyright rules specifically state
> that my software may not be included in products without my
> approval. There are good reasons for this. It is to prevent my
> hard labour being abused only to help entice people buying said
> products. As such, regardless of the proposed 'value' of the
> mere side-effect of the software being distributed just a little
> more (which is nill, and this is 15 years of experience talking),
> it has a very clear commercial value, and, consequently, proper
> negotiations are in order.
Would you have granted it if asked i the first instance.
Considering you allow free download and the app is shareware, and it is
on the foundation CD's; I would assume you would grant permission if
asked first.
>
> Virtual Acorn have only offered to remove my software from their
> product, but will not recall and will continue to sell existing
> copies of the CD-ROM that contain my software. They have declined
> to solve this matter in any proper way, as I have kindly proposed.
What would be a satisfacoty outcome here John?
>
> The existing copies, either sold or waiting to be sold, of said
> CD-ROM, are illegal. As such, a lawyer has advised me, they are
> to be sent back to Virtual Acorn to be destroyed and replaced by
> CD-ROMs that don't violate my (and probably many other authors')
> copyrights. Failing to do this in a satisfactory way may result
> in a criminal lawsuit against Virtual Acorn (for which I may have
> to stand in line, by the looks of it, but I will).
Would you accept a PUBLIC appology and a suitable donation to your
favourite charity?
Or them too buy viewfinders to the value of an agreed sum for donation
to a charity auction?
>
> Shareware and freeware authors that also mind their copyrights
> being blatantly treaded on are advised to have a look at
>
> http://www.virtualacorn.co.uk/hd.htm
>
> to see if their software is among the supplied software.
>
>
> John Kortink
I agree with you 100% here John. People have kindly striven for yesars
to provide cheap software/free software/shareware and all they ask is a
little bit of consideration. VA should have asked.
But can you be met somewhere in the middle. Your Shareware is being put
to a wider audience that may register. Would you accept a public
appology and some recompence or do you want complete removal of the
software?
I'm going to buy VA for the app not for the tons of apps bundled with
it.
regards
Bob
Steffen Huber
[snip]
> Shareware and freeware authors that also mind their copyrights
> being blatantly treaded on are advised to have a look at
>
> http://www.virtualacorn.co.uk/hd.htm
>
> to see if their software is among the supplied software.
The list is not complete, it does not include the downloadable "emulators"
and "speedtests" upgrade packs.
The "emulators" pack includes Frodo, whose licence explicitly forbids such
a distribution.
To me it looks indeed like the VirtualAcorn guys take a very relaxed
attitude towards copyright. Their refusal to offer you a deal is really
telling.
Steffen
--
steffe...@gmx.de ste...@huber-net.de
GCC for RISC OS - http://www.arcsite.de/hp/gcc/
Private homepage - http://www.huber-net.de/
Ralph Corderoy
> Virtual Acorn have only offered to remove my software from their
> product, but will not recall and will continue to sell existing
> copies of the CD-ROM that contain my software. They have declined
> to solve this matter in any proper way, as I have kindly proposed.
What was your proposal, can you make that clearer?
Ralph.
Rod Dennis
news:1a6n6uo06mfagrdgl...@4ax.com...
> Translator, Creator and Earthmap, three applications of mine,
> are being supplied with copies of Virtual A5000, a product of
> Virtual Acorn (http://www.virtualacorn.co.uk).
(snip)
> Shareware and freeware authors that also mind their copyrights
> being blatantly treaded on are advised to have a look at
>
> http://www.virtualacorn.co.uk/hd.htm
>
> to see if their software is among the supplied software.
Looking at the vast list of software on that page, i did does not surprise
me if the authors of 'VirtualAcorn' have not contacted everyone on that
list.
It seems that copyright issues have not been properly considered; this is
serious not only in the law-sense, but also to our platform, which needs to
hold onto innovative programmers like John Kortink who provide key
applications for very little cash.
I am very sorry to hear about this.
Rod
Matthias Seifert
> John Kortink wrote:
> [snip]
> > Shareware and freeware authors that also mind their copyrights
> > being blatantly treaded on are advised to have a look at
> >
> > http://www.virtualacorn.co.uk/hd.htm
> >
> > to see if their software is among the supplied software.
> The list is not complete, it does not include the downloadable
> "emulators" and "speedtests" upgrade packs.
Hmmm, I notice that they include !SICK there, while strictly speaking,
!SICK isn't freeware, nor PD. In fact, the only hint it contains about
it's legal status is a copyright notice at the first line of the !Help
file...
Not that I really mind, as the program is freely available anyway, but I
would have assumed to be asked first before the program is included in
such a package (as others did in the past)...
Maybe I should update the !Help file now to make the status of !SICK more
clear for future issues...
--
_ _ | Acorn RiscPC, StrongARM @ 287 MHz,
| | | _, _|__|_ |) ' _, , | 258 MB RAM, >100 GB HD, RISC OS 4.02
| | | / | | | |/\ | / | / \ | ------------------------------------
| | |_/\/|_/|_/|_/| |/|/\/|_/ \/ | http://www.software-evolutions.de
Matthias Seifert
[...]
> Looking at the vast list of software on that page, i did does not
> surprise me if the authors of 'VirtualAcorn' have not contacted everyone
> on that list.
Why?
They obviously(?) did so with some of the software included (at least this
seems to be the case with RISC OS 3.11 and Ovation), but didn't do so with
others. Is it really to much hassle to send an email to each of those
authors and ask for a permission? I really would have expected that this
had happened. I mean, we are talking about a commercial product here...
> It seems that copyright issues have not been properly considered;
Indeed.
> this is serious not only in the law-sense, but also to our platform,
> which needs to hold onto innovative programmers like John Kortink who
> provide key applications for very little cash.
OTOH he provides the same applications for free, too - i.e. you can just
download them without paying anything (anyway), thus there isn't really a
financial drawback if they are included with VirtualAcorn as by this it
only saves the customer some money which he had to spend to download the
software.
But of course, and to make that clear, if John stated that his software
may not be included in any (commercial) package, they simply mustn't be
included. I even would say that as long as the software doesn't clearly
say somewhere that it may be included in such a package, the author should
be asked first. If only for good manners...
Chris Evans
<URL:mailto:nos...@thanksverymuch.com> wrote:
> "John Kortink" <kor...@inter.nl.net> wrote in message
> news:1a6n6uo06mfagrdgl...@4ax.com...
> > Translator, Creator and Earthmap, three applications of mine,
> > are being supplied with copies of Virtual A5000, a product of
> > Virtual Acorn (http://www.virtualacorn.co.uk).
>
> (snip)
>
> > Shareware and freeware authors that also mind their copyrights
> > being blatantly treaded on are advised to have a look at
> >
> > http://www.virtualacorn.co.uk/hd.htm
> >
> > to see if their software is among the supplied software.
>
> Looking at the vast list of software on that page, i did does not surprise
> me if the authors of 'VirtualAcorn' have not contacted everyone on that
> list.
I remember one compiler of cover discs for a particular magazine in the
Acorn market telling me, that he spent more time on contacting and getting
permission from authors than on any other aspect of compiling the disk.
With the advent of CD's the problem got bigger, but most cover CDs only
contained authorised software.
Having said that, I have been thinking recently that there is an argument
for a new law to govern the use of no longer commercially available
software.
How many companies have gone bust or disappeared and the recievers have not
sold/passed on the IPR, leaving useful software in limbo, it is such a
waste.
Patents eventually become PD, but copyright lasts much longer and software
has a much shorter 'sell by date'
How you would draft such a law that would be fair I do not know, but it
coul be useful!
Chris Evans
--
CJE Micro's / NCS / Fourth Dimension 'RISC OS Specialists'
Telephone: (01903) 523222 Fax: (01903) 523679
ch...@cjemicros.co.uk http://www.cjemicros.co.uk/
78 Brighton Road, Worthing, West Sussex, BN11 2EN, UK.
Paul F. Johnson
On Thu, 14 Feb 2002 18:50:14 +0000, Chris Evans wrote:
> I remember one compiler of cover discs for a particular magazine in the
> Acorn market telling me, that he spent more time on contacting and
> getting permission from authors than on any other aspect of compiling
> the disk. With the advent of CD's the problem got bigger, but most cover
> CDs only contained authorised software.
You're not wrong there. Having compiled quite a few CDs for both AU and
RISC OS Charity Projects, it is murder getting all the permissions.
Sometimes the odd piece does slip through. In this case, it is just
unfortunate that 4 pieces of high profile have been found - I don't
believe for one iota that the VA guys would have done something like that
intentionally. Ever tried to get 500Mb worth of software + all the
permissions?
Actually, the way the law is worded, basically, unless the software is
commercial, the licence is practically worthless. It is slightly different
for shareware, but as it is on "a promise" type of payment, the level of
power the author has is shockingly little. Now if someone ripped off (say)
ArtWorks and called it ArtistryPro with a few modifications for it to do
one or two things different, then it's a totally different kettle of fish.
When I did the China CDs a couple of authors did not want their software
to go on the discs and threatened to complain to whoever if it did appear.
On advice, I found that they would not have had a leg to stand on if they
wanted to press it further as the software was released into the public
forum *without financial gain (or limited gain)* to the authors. involved
The chap I spoke to basically said that unless it's commercial and you're
not ripping the code off and saying it's your own, then the authors can't
do anything about it.
> Having said that, I have been thinking recently that there is an
> argument for a new law to govern the use of no longer commercially
> available software.
> How many companies have gone bust or disappeared and the recievers have
> not sold/passed on the IPR, leaving useful software in limbo, it is such
> a waste.
I agree totally. Just look at the ones who have left this platform and
the software (much of which still used) they left. IPR is a dodgy ground
as it remains with the company (and once the company has gone bankrupt,
depending on how it was sold) reverts back to either the company which
buys the remains or the author if no-one does. This is big business in
research fields and has cost many a sleepless night....
> Patents eventually become PD, but copyright lasts much longer and
> software has a much shorter 'sell by date'
Depending on the medium the copyright lasts as long as the liniage of the
person who wrote it lasts. Patents don't become PD either. They become
more like free or shareware.
> How you would draft such a law that would be fair I do not know, but it
> coul be useful!
Definately. This is one reason why open source is so damned nice!
TTFN
Paul
--
Sent from a machine using the GNU/Linux kernel and supporting
all that is good and right by not supporting dodgy operating
systems originating from Redmond USA, but the sterling work
from the open source brigade. http://www.gnu.org
Ray Dawson
John Kortink <kor...@inter.nl.net> wrote:
> The existing copies, either sold or waiting to be sold, of said
> CD-ROM, are illegal. As such, a lawyer has advised me, they are
> to be sent back to Virtual Acorn to be destroyed and replaced by
> CD-ROMs that don't violate my (and probably many other authors')
> copyrights. Failing to do this in a satisfactory way may result
> in a criminal lawsuit against Virtual Acorn (for which I may have
> to stand in line, by the looks of it, but I will).
I'm sorry you are upset John, but did RISCOS Ltd have your full
permission to bundle Creator and Translator with RISC OS 4?
There is a copy of each with InterGif in the Freesoft.Graphocs folder.
The note on the RO4 CD says:
> The software in these folders is provided as is with no warranttee as
> to its suitibility or otherwise for the purpose of use stated. These
> applications are provided as bonus items to compliment the RISC OS 4
> product, but will not be supported by RISCOS Ltd. Inclusion on this CD
> does not warrant conformance or compliance with RISC OS 4, although
> every effort has been made to check the software on RISC OS 4 StrongArm
> computers.
> An item's inclusion on the CD doesn't imply any form of recommendation
> or judgement of merit by RISC OS Ltd, merely that these applications
> were available and may prove useful to RISC OS 4 users.
which is not much of a copyright notice and I note that yours is a bit
sparse inside Creator and Translator.
I feel sure that VirtualAcorn didn't mean to upset you and I hope you get
some registrations as a result of their including them on their CD.
Cheers,
Ray D
--
Ray Dawson
r...@magray.freeserve.co.uk
MagRay - the audio & braille specialists
Ian Molton
sheaf of electrons and etched in their motions the following immortal
words:
> I'm sorry you are upset John, but did RISCOS Ltd have your full
> permission to bundle Creator and Translator with RISC OS 4?
>
> There is a copy of each with InterGif in the Freesoft.Graphocs folder.
I'd like to hear your views on this, John.
If ROL asked, then fine, I'm happy about you going after the VA people.
If they didnt, and you havent persued them, I hope you will too. If not,
you should not IMHO persue matters with VA beyond a wrist slap.
Respectfully,
Ian.
Martin Wuerthner
"Paul F. Johnson" <paulf....@oh-i-do-love-spam.ukspammersonline.co.uk.spammmm> wrote:
> Actually, the way the law is worded, basically, unless the software is
> commercial, the licence is practically worthless. It is slightly
> different for shareware, but as it is on "a promise" type of payment,
> the level of power the author has is shockingly little. Now if someone
> ripped off (say) ArtWorks and called it ArtistryPro with a few
> modifications for it to do one or two things different, then it's a
> totally different kettle of fish.
No. I completely disagree here. The way the law is worded is quite clear:
Whoever creates something with an artistic or creative value has the
copyright on it (and such artistic or creative value is generally
attributed to software in court). This means that NOBODY ELSE MAY COPY THE
SOFTWARE unless he/she has been given explicit permission. So, you cannot
burn it on a CD unless such distribution is explicitly allowed. You may
not even run it on your computer without permission because running it
means copying it from hard disc into RAM. There is no difference at all
between commercial and non-commercial software.
This is true irrespective of whether the software includes a written
licence at all. Basically, if the author has not personally granted you
permission to run the software, you do so at your own risk of doing
something illegal. We generally tend to trust the help files that come
with such software, though and it is quite safe to do so: If you can give
evidence that what you did was in good faith, then, although what you did
was still illegal, the worst punishment that can happen is that the court
can order you not to infringe the copyright again.
> When I did the China CDs a couple of authors did not want their software
> to go on the discs and threatened to complain to whoever if it did
> appear. On advice, I found that they would not have had a leg to stand
> on if they wanted to press it further as the software was released into
> the public forum *without financial gain (or limited gain)* to the
> authors. involved The chap I spoke to basically said that unless it's
> commercial and you're not ripping the code off and saying it's your own,
> then the authors can't do anything about it.
Let us not mix up two things here: The legal side and the practical side.
Your paragraph sounded as if the author had no legal leg to stand on,
which is wrong. If you include the program without the author's
permission, then this is an illegal act. If I release a program I have
written, I can subject it to any licence I want. It may read "This program
may be copied by everyone not called Paul". This would mean that you,
Paul, could not run it legally. It is that simple. The reason why this
works is because by default, the copyright to the program vests in me and
nobody else may copy it. I can grant permission to anyone I want or
withhold it from everyone I want.
On the practical side, what happens if you include someone else's program
on a CD without his permission? It turns out that indeed there is not too
much the author can do. And this is where the distinction between
commercial and non-commercial software comes in. As the software was
released without hope for financial gain, the author cannot claim any
compensation from you - obviously, as he has not suffered any financial
damage. However, the author still has the right to stop the further
distribution of the CD. There have been cases in Germany where this only
affected the CDs that were still in the possession of the original
publisher, not those stocked by dealers - presumably, because they had
bought them in good faith.
There have been various precedents in Germany (where the law might be
slightly different, but the laws are definitely converging because there
is a European guideline that should have been implemented by now).
Actually, one incident might be interesting to note:
A big German company, I think it was German Telekom, included a ShareWare
dearchiver program on a commercial CD without asking the author. I am sure
the author would have been glad to give his permission, after all it would
have meant that his program was spread to thousands of customers with the
chance of a certain fraction of them actually registering it.
Unfortunately, he was not asked, so when he found out he sued German
Telekom and got a huge compensation (somewhere in the six or seven figures
range). The compensation was somehow based on the registration fee and the
number of copies of the CD that were sold but I cannot remember the
details.
Martin
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Wuerthner MW Software mar...@mw-software.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthias Seifert
> In message <pan.2002.02.14.20...@oh-i-do-love-spam.ukspammersonline.co.uk.spammmm>
> "Paul F. Johnson" <paulf....@oh-i-do-love-spam.ukspammersonline.co.uk.spammmm> wrote:
> > Actually, the way the law is worded, basically, unless the software is
> > commercial, the licence is practically worthless. It is slightly
> > different for shareware, but as it is on "a promise" type of payment,
> > the level of power the author has is shockingly little. Now if someone
> > ripped off (say) ArtWorks and called it ArtistryPro with a few
> > modifications for it to do one or two things different, then it's a
> > totally different kettle of fish.
> No. I completely disagree here. The way the law is worded is quite
> clear: Whoever creates something with an artistic or creative value has
> the copyright on it (and such artistic or creative value is generally
> attributed to software in court). This means that NOBODY ELSE MAY COPY
> THE SOFTWARE unless he/she has been given explicit permission. So, you
> cannot burn it on a CD unless such distribution is explicitly allowed.
> You may not even run it on your computer without permission because
> running it means copying it from hard disc into RAM. There is no
> difference at all between commercial and non-commercial software.
Well, at least in Germany there is a difference between commercial and
non-commercial software. If I buy software, I own it. There's very little
a software company can tell me how to use it - as long as I don't do
anything which is rated as illegal by the law. In particular "breaking
seal licences" are worthless due to that.
With "free" software I would think that things are a bit different. As one
didn't pay for it, he doesn't own it. And as you don't own it, you may
well get restricted by whatever the author told you by handing over the
program. You may argue that you own it because it was a "gift", but as
with every other present, this may well be related to one or the other
condition (e.g. the "licence")...
At least that's how I see it. :-)
> This is true irrespective of whether the software includes a written
> licence at all. Basically, if the author has not personally granted you
> permission to run the software, you do so at your own risk of doing
> something illegal.
But if he sold it to me, I can well assume that I am allowed to use it -
no matter what the licence may say.
[...]
> If I release a program I have written, I can subject it to any licence I
> want.
Well, that's what Microsoft (and others) obviously thought too - but we
know that this simply isn't the case...
> It may read "This program may be copied by everyone not called Paul".
> This would mean that you, Paul, could not run it legally.
Depents on how you ensured that, I would say. With a commercial program I
don't see how you could achieve that (ignoring that you probably wouldn't
allow anyone to copy a commercial program) - you (probably) would have to
get Paul to sign a contract which states that...
With free software (i.e. software one didn't have to pay for) OTOH I would
think, as I already said, that things are a bit different.
Stuart Marshall
> I remember one compiler of cover discs for a particular magazine in the
> Acorn market telling me, that he spent more time on contacting and getting
> permission from authors than on any other aspect of compiling the disk.
> With the advent of CD's the problem got bigger, but most cover CDs only
> contained authorised software.
Absolutely.
I think it's an appropriate time to give Paul Middleton some credit
here. In his Uniqueway days I remember being contacted by him asking
if he could include some of the Spidersoft stuff on one of the Risc
Disc CD ROMs.
I gave permission, and in return received a free copy of the CD ROM,
no doubt many others received the same.
"Budget" software authors, whether it is freeware, shareware or
whatever have contributed massively over the years -- let's not upset
them.
The situation between John <-> VirtualAcorn sounds messy and I hope
a deal acceptable to both parties can be reached, quickly.
Regards,
Stuart.
Malcolm Ripley
big time and need to do something about it. Instead we have people
defending VA to the hilt, inventing conspiracy theories as to why Paul
Middleton gave his licence warning and now John has to defend his position.
The fault lies with VirtualAcorn, get them to sort it out.
Malcolm
--
Andy McMullon
Malcolm Ripley <mri...@argonet.co.uk> expounded:
> When are folks here going to take a step back and see that VA have cocked up
> big time and need to do something about it. Instead we have people
> defending VA to the hilt, inventing conspiracy theories as to why Paul
> Middleton gave his licence warning and now John has to defend his position.
That's not at all how everyone reads it. The license could appear to
give permission for a VA type distribution. John *clarified* that he
did not intend that. VA accepted the clarification and took
appropriate action.
> The fault lies with VirtualAcorn, get them to sort it out.
IMO the fault was in doing all this publically. I'm glad its now
sorted to their mutual agreement.
George Greenfield
There doesn't seem to be much 'mutual agreement' around as far as I can see
(cf. the current 'Announcement regarding Translator' from J Kortink), so I
fear your optimism is misplaced.
I'd be surprised if ROL had not sought professional legal advice on the RO
3.1 issue before going public, so presumably they have been told their
position in law is strong, in which case, sooner or later (and probably
sooner), VA is going to have to come to terms or face the consequences.
I agree however that the whole episode reflects poorly on our platform.
cheers
--
The Greenfields at home
Michael Gilbert
<URL:mailto:free0...@ukgateway.net> wrote:
> In article <ac3e370...@mcfamily.demon.co.uk>, Andy McMullon
> <URL:mailto:an...@mcfamily.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > In missive <na.7934204b0a...@argonet.co.uk>
> > Malcolm Ripley <mri...@argonet.co.uk> expounded:
> >
> >
> > > When are folks here going to take a step back and see that VA have
> > > cocked up big time and need to do something about it. Instead we have
> > > people defending VA to the hilt, inventing conspiracy theories as to why
> > > Paul Middleton gave his licence warning and now John has to defend his
> > > position.
> >
> > That's not at all how everyone reads it. The license could appear to
> > give permission for a VA type distribution. John *clarified* that he
> > did not intend that. VA accepted the clarification and took
> > appropriate action.
> >
> > > The fault lies with VirtualAcorn, get them to sort it out.
> >
> > IMO the fault was in doing all this publically. I'm glad its now
> > sorted to their mutual agreement.
> >
>
> There doesn't seem to be much 'mutual agreement' around as far as I can see
> (cf. the current 'Announcement regarding Translator' from J Kortink), so I
> fear your optimism is misplaced.
I think that the issue of John's products has been settled to the
satisfaction of both parties, from what they've both recently posted.
Aaron seems to be embarrassed by the cockup, JK righteously indignant.
But it has been a cockup, not a conspiracy.
>
> I'd be surprised if ROL had not sought professional legal advice on the RO
> 3.1 issue before going public, so presumably they have been told their
> position in law is strong, in which case, sooner or later (and probably
> sooner), VA is going to have to come to terms or face the consequences.
As far as the VA5000 release goes, to the best of my knowledge Aaron
sought and received explicit permission to distribute the ROM images and
associated software from Pace, the holders of the copyright. ROL, to the
best of my understanding, are concerned with the development of the
Operating System for the future. How a decade-old undeveloped variant of
the OS can impact on their business is yet to be made clear to me.
>
> I agree however that the whole episode reflects poorly on our platform.
No it doesn't. It reflects poorly on the carelessness of one party and
the public stroppiness of another. Neither has anything to do with the
platform per se. It would have been nice for them to have aired their
dirty linen behind closed emails, but JK chose to make it public. I'm
unsure whether I applaud or deplore his attitude, but it has ensured
that I am rigorous about not keeping copies of his software on my
system. I haven't found it does what I need, which is no reflection on
its overall utility or quality.
It does bring into sharp relief our main problem, which is that there is
not enough money or size in the market to pay for the development of new
or old software products.
Cheers
Mike
--
Michael Gilbert: in his own write
***** Error: Keyboard not found *****
******** Press F1 to continue *******
Ralph Corderoy
> I'd be surprised if ROL had not sought professional legal advice on
> the RO 3.1 issue before going public, so presumably they have been
> told their position in law is strong, in which case, sooner or later
> (and probably sooner), VA is going to have to come to terms or face
> the consequences.
I don't see how you can possibly draw that conclusion. It seems clear
that ROL don't have a legal leg to stand on WRT VA shipping RO 3.10 and
have resorted to slinging mud instead.
Ralph.
Matthias Seifert
> In article <4b091f305...@t-online.de>, Matthias Seifert
> <M.Se...@t-online.de> wrote:
> > Well, that's what Microsoft (and others) obviously thought too - but we
> > know that this simply isn't the case...
> UCITA.
> :-)
Well, as UCITA is American law, it doesn't really care to me as a German
customer (and developer). :-)
> I think you can put anything you want in a licence. However only certain
> things are likely to carry any sort of weight should it be argued.
In Germany the situation is quite clear: As you do _buy_ (commercial)
software (and not just license it), it doesn't matter at all what is
written in a licence. It would take an additional _contract_ between the
end user and the copyright holder to get the usual rights restricted. And
this contract has to be signed (or at least clearly accepted) _before_ one
paid for the program.
Matthias Seifert
> > Actually, the way the law is worded, basically, unless the software is
> > commercial, the licence is practically worthless.
The strange thing about that is, that (at least) in Germany it is
definitely the other way round.
> Most licences are.
> But a licence is not /strictly/ necessary to back up the whole "original
> work" and "copyright" stuff.
> Even with NO licence, you should not be taking liberties with software,
> the whole IPR thing.
I would have started that sentence with "Especially with NO licence, ...".
But this may well only be the case in Germany.
> > The chap I spoke to basically said that unless it's commercial and
> > you're not ripping the code off and saying it's your own, then the
> > authors can't do anything about it.
> Mmmm, interesting.
This is _definitely_ not the case with software developed by German
authors. (And I would have expected that the same is the case in the rest
of Europe, but in fact I don't know.)
Tony van der Hoff
Michael Gilbert <mgil...@eclipse.co.uk> wrote:
>
> As far as the VA5000 release goes, to the best of my knowledge Aaron
> sought and received explicit permission to distribute the ROM images and
> associated software from Pace, the holders of the copyright. ROL, to the
> best of my understanding, are concerned with the development of the
> Operating System for the future. How a decade-old undeveloped variant of
> the OS can impact on their business is yet to be made clear to me.
The problem, AIUI, is that ROSL hold an *exclusive* licence from Pace for the
distribution [1] of RISC OS for desktop use. That exclusivity is
unrestricted, and version numbers are irrelevant.
From this, it follows that Pace would have been unable to grant Aaron a
licence for the distribution of 3.1, or any other version. The ROSL business
plan relied, quite legitimately, on this exclusivity. We, the bystanders, are
quite unable, without full knowledge of the facts, to judge whether or not
this has an impact upon their business.
Now, unless ROSL have misunderstood their exclusivity agreement, then either
Pace have cocked up in granting Aaron a license, or Aaron has misunderstood
his putative license. Undoubtedly there are all shades of grey between these
three possibilities. I'm sure the lawyers are rubbing their hands with glee.
Given the lack of money in this market, that can only be bad for the
platform, whatever the outcome.
[1]. Before anyone drags Castle's position into this, they hold only a
*manufacturing* licence, which allows them to supply RO 3.7 as part of their
products. This licence predated that granted to ROSL.
--
Tony van der Hoff | MailTo:to...@mk-net.demon.co.uk
| MailTo:avand...@iee.org
Buckinghamshire, England | http:www.mk-net.demon.co.uk
Matthias Seifert
[...]
> The problem, AIUI, is that ROSL hold an *exclusive* licence from Pace
> for the distribution [1] of RISC OS for desktop use. That exclusivity is
> unrestricted, and version numbers are irrelevant.
If you are right with your assumption, the version numbers are irrelevant.
But if it is a exclusive licence from Pace for the distribution of RISC OS
4 for desktop use, the version numbers aren't irrelevant. As I didn't see
the licence myself, I don't know which of both is the case. :-)
[...]
> Now, unless ROSL have misunderstood their exclusivity agreement, then
> either Pace have cocked up in granting Aaron a license, or Aaron has
> misunderstood his putative license.
But for some reason, RISCOS Ltd never claimed either of these. All they
ever said (publicly) was, that the use of RISC OS 3.11 by VirtualA5000
never has been licensed by Pace, whatever they intended to imply by that...
Steffen Huber
> > I'd be surprised if ROL had not sought professional legal advice on
> > the RO 3.1 issue before going public, so presumably they have been
> > told their position in law is strong, in which case, sooner or later
> > (and probably sooner), VA is going to have to come to terms or face
> > the consequences.
>
> I don't see how you can possibly draw that conclusion.
I am interested to hear your reasoning about *your* drawing of conclusions.
> It seems clear
> that ROL don't have a legal leg to stand on WRT VA shipping RO 3.10 and
> have resorted to slinging mud instead.
Really? So you are one of the few people who have actually read the
licence agreement between e14 and RISCOS Ltd., and are able to tell
us whether the exclusive desktop licence only covers RO4 or all RO
versions?
RO Ltd. have said that their licence covers all RO versions. I tend
to believe them. You obviously don't believe it - why?
Ray Dawson
<to...@mk-net.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> The problem, AIUI, is that ROSL hold an *exclusive* licence from Pace
> for the distribution [1] of RISC OS for desktop use. That exclusivity
> is unrestricted, and version numbers are irrelevant.
> From this, it follows that Pace would have been unable to grant Aaron a
> licence for the distribution of 3.1, or any other version. The ROSL
> business plan relied, quite legitimately, on this exclusivity. We, the
> bystanders, are quite unable, without full knowledge of the facts, to
> judge whether or not this has an impact upon their business.
Does that mean that every time we rescue pre-RISC OS 4 machines from
school skips etc we are damaging RISCOS Ltd?
And presumably, those licences aren't transferrable - especially if they
were site licences.
Tony van der Hoff
Ray Dawson <R...@magray.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <db51ad0...@mk-net.demon.co.uk>, Tony van der Hoff
> <to...@mk-net.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > The problem, AIUI, is that ROSL hold an *exclusive* licence from Pace
> > for the distribution [1] of RISC OS for desktop use. That exclusivity
> > is unrestricted, and version numbers are irrelevant.
>
> > From this, it follows that Pace would have been unable to grant Aaron a
> > licence for the distribution of 3.1, or any other version. The ROSL
> > business plan relied, quite legitimately, on this exclusivity. We, the
> > bystanders, are quite unable, without full knowledge of the facts, to
> > judge whether or not this has an impact upon their business.
>
> Does that mean that every time we rescue pre-RISC OS 4 machines from
> school skips etc we are damaging RISCOS Ltd?
>
I fail to understand how you make that connection. I think you're trolling,
Ray.
>And presumably, those licences aren't transferrable - especially if they
>were site licences.
>
I don't know; I fail to understand the relevance of that statement. I think
you're trolling, Ray.
<sigh>
Ray Dawson
<to...@mk-net.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 18 Feb 2002, in message <4b0ab3...@magray.freeserve.co.uk>, Ray
> Dawson <R...@magray.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> > In article <db51ad0...@mk-net.demon.co.uk>, Tony van der Hoff
> > <to...@mk-net.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > The problem, AIUI, is that ROSL hold an *exclusive* licence from
> > > Pace for the distribution [1] of RISC OS for desktop use. That
> > > exclusivity is unrestricted, and version numbers are irrelevant.
> >
> > > From this, it follows that Pace would have been unable to grant
> > > Aaron a licence for the distribution of 3.1, or any other version.
> > > The ROSL business plan relied, quite legitimately, on this
> > > exclusivity. We, the bystanders, are quite unable, without full
> > > knowledge of the facts, to judge whether or not this has an impact
> > > upon their business.
> >
> > Does that mean that every time we rescue pre-RISC OS 4 machines from
> > school skips etc we are damaging RISCOS Ltd?
> >
> I fail to understand how you make that connection. I think you're
> trolling, Ray.
Not at all - I'm being serious. You seem to suggest above that RISCOS Ltd
may be damaged by Aaron being granted a licence (or at least permission)
to distribute RISC OS 3.11. That the ROL business plan relied on there
being no more copies of older versions being distributed by other
parties.
I'm not sure where Castle come in your presumptions as they had a licence
to distribute RISC OS 3.7 - which removes ROL's exclusivity.
I'm just commenting that every old RISC OS machine rescued from various
skips via the newsgroups can be compared to copies of RISC OS 3.11 being
distributed by other parties.
To turn this around, I'm saying that I don't believe ROL can be damaged
by Aaron distributing RO 3.11 anymore than old machines being recycled.
> >And presumably, those licences aren't transferrable - especially if
> >they were site licences.
> >
> I don't know; I fail to understand the relevance of that statement. I
> think you're trolling, Ray.
A lot has been made of licence conditions in this and other threads. I'm
merely suggesting that we ought to be very careful of licence conditions
when it comes to old machines being put in the hands of new users. The
licence for the operating system may not be transferrable - especially if
it is a site licence granted to the school/organisation which is getting
rid of the machines to several new owners.
I don't know - I'm just suggesting that with the problems that licences
seem to be causing at the moment, we are careful that we don't make
matters worse by possibly using the newsgroups to sell old machines
against licencing conditions.
Paul Boddie
> Ralph Corderoy wrote:
> > It seems clear
> > that ROL don't have a legal leg to stand on WRT VA shipping RO 3.10 and
> > have resorted to slinging mud instead.
>
> Really? So you are one of the few people who have actually read the
> licence agreement between e14 and RISCOS Ltd., and are able to tell
> us whether the exclusive desktop licence only covers RO4 or all RO
> versions?
One doesn't need to have read the licence agreement to reach the most
pertinent conclusion...
> RO Ltd. have said that their licence covers all RO versions. I tend
> to believe them. You obviously don't believe it - why?
Because if it did, the VirtualAcorn product would surely have been
stopped in its tracks, given enough willingness on the part of RISC OS
Ltd. to take legal action. Even if RISC OS Ltd. do have exclusive
rights to license RISC OS (of any version) to other parties, if they
don't take legal action to protect those rights, then those rights
become substantially less valuable.
Given that RISC OS Ltd. should know the importance of a legal defence
of their intellectual property rights, it's fair for a casual observer
to assume that those rights just don't apply in this case if RISC OS
Ltd. aren't visibly doing anything about the VirtualAcorn product.
Paul
Ray Dawson
Ray Dawson <R...@magray.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> A lot has been made of licence conditions in this and other threads.
> I'm merely suggesting that we ought to be very careful of licence
> conditions when it comes to old machines being put in the hands of new
> users. The licence for the operating system may not be transferrable -
> especially if it is a site licence granted to the school/organisation
> which is getting rid of the machines to several new owners.
I've just read the end-user licence conditions for the RISC Operating
System as printed on the back of the RO3 User Guide and section 2 says:
---------------------------
2. Licence
Acorn grants you a personal non-transferable non-exclusive licence (or
sub-licence) as folows:
(1) you may copy the software for backup purposes, to support its use on
one stand-alone Acorn computer system.
(2) You must ensure that the copyright notices contained in the Software
are reproduced and included in any copy of the software.
You may not:
(i) copy only part of the software; or (ii) make the Software or the
Documentation available to any third party by way of gift or loan or
hire; (iii) incorporate any part of the software into other programs
developed or used by you ... etc.
----------------------------
2. says that the licence is non-transferable, which presumably means you
cannot sell or give away a copy of RISC OS when you dispose of a machine.
2. (ii) appears to reinforce that.
So, if you buy a secondhand Acorn computer, how do you go about LEGALLY
getting a copy of the operating system to run on it? The previous
owner/seller can't provide you with it (unless you live in Germany
perhaps).
Which presumably means that CJE et al cannot sell you an Acorn machine
with a working copy of RISC OS.
What a minefield!
Tony van der Hoff
Ray Dawson <R...@magray.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
First, unless you've lost the ability to read, you will note that I said "We,
the bystanders, are quite unable, without full knowledge of the facts, to
judge whether or not this has an impact upon their business". That does
not seems to me to imply the suggestion you're attributing to me.
Secondly, the only thing I am suggesting is that ROSL have a *right* to rely
for their business plan on the agreements they hold. I make no comment on
that plan.
> I'm not sure where Castle come in your presumptions as they had a licence
> to distribute RISC OS 3.7 - which removes ROL's exclusivity.
>
The reason for your uncertainty is that you, in your haste to criticise ROSL,
and defend VA, you didn't read to the end of my original post. The bit you
snipped, where I said:
[1]. Before anyone drags Castle's position into this, they hold only a
*manufacturing* licence, which allows them to supply RO 3.7 as part of their
products. This licence predated that granted to ROSL.
> I'm just commenting that every old RISC OS machine rescued from various
> skips via the newsgroups can be compared to copies of RISC OS 3.11 being
> distributed by other parties.
>
Which is an odd, and if I may say so, a rather naive comment to make.
> To turn this around, I'm saying that I don't believe ROL can be damaged
> by Aaron distributing RO 3.11 anymore than old machines being recycled.
>
I suspect your belief is totally irrelevant to ROSL's chagrin at having their
exclusivity agreement undermined.
> > >And presumably, those licences aren't transferrable - especially if
> > >they were site licences.
> > >
> > I don't know; I fail to understand the relevance of that statement. I
> > think you're trolling, Ray.
>
> A lot has been made of licence conditions in this and other threads. I'm
> merely suggesting that we ought to be very careful of licence conditions
> when it comes to old machines being put in the hands of new users. The
> licence for the operating system may not be transferrable - especially if
> it is a site licence granted to the school/organisation which is getting
> rid of the machines to several new owners.
>
> I don't know - I'm just suggesting that with the problems that licences
> seem to be causing at the moment, we are careful that we don't make
> matters worse by possibly using the newsgroups to sell old machines
> against licencing conditions.
>
My only comment on license conditions was that ROSL allegedly hold an
exclusive agreement, which has been undermined. I carefully avoided saying by
whom, but suggested one or more of three parties was mistaken. I then went on
to say that none of us can know the true situation. You responded with a
whole bunch of irrelevancies, which you're now trying to justify. That, to
me, constitutes a troll.
Most of us are aware of your antipathy towards ROSL in general, and Paul
Middleton in particular. This casts considerable doubt on your ability to
contribute objectively to this discussion.
I still think you're trolling.
Matthias Seifert
[...]
> Does that mean that every time we rescue pre-RISC OS 4 machines from
> school skips etc we are damaging RISCOS Ltd?
Of course you are damaging RISCOS Ltd by that. Well, unless you upgrade
them to RISC OS 4 of course.
Due to this you obviously damage them even more if you rescue RISC OS 4
machines from school skips etc.
> And presumably, those licences aren't transferrable - especially if they
> were site licences.
Site licences for RISC OS? Do these really exist?
Stuart Tyrrell
Ray Dawson <R...@magray.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> 2. Licence
Acorn's early licenses were meaningless - don't rely on them to
justify any point of view ;-)
Stuart.
--
Stuart Tyrrell Developments Stu...@stdevel.demon.co.uk
PO Box 183, OLDHAM. OL2 8FB http://www.stdevel.demon.co.uk
Tel: 0845 458 8803 / 01706 848 600 Fax: 0870 164 1604
** NEW local rate sales line Use PS/2 devices only UKP 24.95 **
Tony van der Hoff
pa...@boddie.net (Paul Boddie) wrote:
> Steffen Huber <steffe...@gmx.de> wrote in message
> news:<3C70E694...@gmx.de>...
> > Ralph Corderoy wrote:
> > > It seems clear that ROL don't have a legal leg to stand on WRT VA
> > > shipping RO 3.10 and have resorted to slinging mud instead.
> >
> > Really? So you are one of the few people who have actually read the
> > licence agreement between e14 and RISCOS Ltd., and are able to tell us
> > whether the exclusive desktop licence only covers RO4 or all RO versions?
>
> One doesn't need to have read the licence agreement to reach the most
> pertinent conclusion...
>
Ah, yes. If you were aware of the facts, then you'd have to be objective in
your arguments. Speculation is so much more fun...
> > RO Ltd. have said that their licence covers all RO versions. I tend to
> > believe them. You obviously don't believe it - why?
>
> Because if it did, the VirtualAcorn product would surely have been stopped
> in its tracks, given enough willingness on the part of RISC OS Ltd. to take
> legal action.
That argument is utterly asinine. What gives you the impression that the
parties involved are *not* trying to resolve the situation? What normally
happens, is that the parties involved will try to sort it out amicably, which
may take a while. After that it may go to Solicitor's letters, and the
parties get their legal teams wound up. Takes a while. Then, if all else
fails it may have to go to litigation, which takes even longer. I imagine
that even now, there are lawyers studying the agreements and that they will
eventually pronounce upon them. Anyone who's had any involvement with the
legal profession will know how long the process can take. In the meantime
there's little *anyone* can do to stop anything in its tracks. Get back to
reality.
> Even if RISC OS Ltd. do have exclusive rights to license RISC OS (of any
> version) to other parties, if they don't take legal action to protect those
> rights, then those rights become substantially less valuable.
>
"Even if"? Are you suggesting from your limited knowledge of their agreements
that they haven't? Where do you find justification for that argument? ROSL
have publicly stated that they believe that their rights have been
undermined. Only a fool will take issue with that. Are you one?
> Given that RISC OS Ltd. should know the importance of a legal defence of
> their intellectual property rights, it's fair for a casual observer to
> assume that those rights just don't apply in this case if RISC OS Ltd.
> aren't visibly doing anything about the VirtualAcorn product.
Another good arguing ploy. First you set a hypothesis based upon idle
speculation; you admit that you don't know the content of ROSL's license. Now
your'e using that shaky hypothesis to support your argument. The fact that
the parties involved aren't slanging it out on UseNet doesn't mean they're
not doing anything!
It is grossly *unfair* for a casual observer, without any knowledge, to
assume *anything* on such matters. I suggest you don't.
Come on, be objective! The discussion has *nothing* to do with VA being a
"good idea" or even being "good for RISC OS", but *everything* to do with
ROSLs putative exclusivity agreement, the exact terms of which none of us
know. You're entitled to any opinion you wish, but it won't be supportable
without *facts*.
Matthias Seifert
[...]
> So, if you buy a secondhand Acorn computer, how do you go about LEGALLY
> getting a copy of the operating system to run on it? The previous
> owner/seller can't provide you with it (unless you live in Germany
> perhaps).
Not "perhaps", it's definitely the case here.
And to me this makes a lot of sense. :-)
Matthias Seifert
[...]
> ROSL have publicly stated that they believe that their rights have been
> undermined.
Where?
Paul F. Johnson
On Mon, 18 Feb 2002 14:47:21 +0000, Tony van der Hoff wrote:
> Anyone
> who's had any involvement with the legal profession will know how long
> the process can take. In the meantime there's little *anyone* can do to
> stop anything in its tracks. Get back to reality.
Hmm, never heard of applying to the court for an order stopping the other
party from selling their product until the legalities are sorted out? No?
Perhaps it's you that should stop and get back to reality.
TTFN
Paul
--
Sent from a PC running the GNU/Linux kernel, using Ximian and not
requiring any form of botched bloatware from a certain Redmond USA
company in order for it to run quickly and efficiently.
http://www.gnu.org - Support open source today!
Steve Drain
> Steffen Huber wrote:
> > RO Ltd. have said that their licence covers all RO versions. I tend
> > to believe them. You obviously don't believe it - why?
> Because if it did, the VirtualAcorn product would surely have been
> stopped in its tracks, given enough willingness on the part of RISC OS
> Ltd. to take legal action
Do they have such willingness?
Perhaps the warning, given only to Foundation members, was nothing more
than a shot across the bows. VA5000 is unlikely to be a problem itself,
but the development of a JIT VARiscPC would be.
It occured to me some while back that whoever gave the informal OK to VA
for RO 3.1 may not have known the details of the licence ROL hold for
RO in desktop machines. It would not be worth ROL pursuing this now, and
they would not wish to waste money on it in the future. Perhaps it is a
case of a stitch in time.
--
; ,', Steve Drain. Kappa http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/kappa/
;,'
;',
,; ',,
druck
> On 18 Feb, Richard Murray <no....@heyrick.co.uk> wrote:
>> In article <4b091f305...@t-online.de>, Matthias Seifert
>> <M.Se...@t-online.de> wrote:
>
>>> Well, that's what Microsoft (and others) obviously thought too - but we
>>> know that this simply isn't the case...
>
>> UCITA.
>
>> :-)
>
> Well, as UCITA is American law, it doesn't really care to me as a German
> customer (and developer). :-)
The combined billions of Microsoft and the other software and entertainment
corperations are lobbying the European officials right now to have laws
similar to DCMA, SSSCA and UCITA incorporated in to EU law.
The new EU copyright law (similar to the DCMA in removing the rights of
consumers and open source developers) has already set out by the commission,
and awaiting ratification by national parliments.
Make no mistake, the US's draconian leglislation is comming here. The lobby
dollar is working wonders on the notorious greasy palms of the EU officals,
and the public is completely blind to such issues. Too late if at all will
they realise the loss of their rights, and the enshirnement in law of the
Microsoft monopoly.
---druck
--
The ARM Club * http://www.armclub.org.uk/
Paul Boddie
> On 18 Feb 2002, in message <23891c90.02021...@posting.google.com>,
> pa...@boddie.net (Paul Boddie) wrote:
>
> > One doesn't need to have read the licence agreement to reach the most
> > pertinent conclusion...
> >
> Ah, yes. If you were aware of the facts, then you'd have to be objective in
> your arguments. Speculation is so much more fun...
The most pertinent conclusion in this situation is that RISC OS Ltd
are unable or unwilling to stop VirtualAcorn from being sold,
regardless of their agreement with Pace. After all, John Kortink has
been waving the big legal stick over a much smaller matter, but
where's the big stick from RISC OS Ltd? In Mr Kortink's case, the
supposed licence violation could have arisen from a misunderstanding
(and arguably ambiguous wording in the licences), whereas no-one has
licensed RISC OS 3.1x in any comparable way - it's much easier to get
that stick out and get an injunction, I would think.
> > > RO Ltd. have said that their licence covers all RO versions. I tend to
> > > believe them. You obviously don't believe it - why?
> >
> > Because if it did, the VirtualAcorn product would surely have been stopped
> > in its tracks, given enough willingness on the part of RISC OS Ltd. to take
> > legal action.
>
> That argument is utterly asinine. What gives you the impression that the
> parties involved are *not* trying to resolve the situation? What normally
> happens, is that the parties involved will try to sort it out amicably, which
> may take a while.
In the meantime, various vague statements are made in semi-public
forums about the illegality of the offending product in question. I
see what various people mean about the "moral decline" of the RISC OS
scene if this is what you call "amicable".
> After that it may go to Solicitor's letters, and the
> parties get their legal teams wound up. Takes a while. Then, if all else
> fails it may have to go to litigation, which takes even longer. I imagine
> that even now, there are lawyers studying the agreements and that they will
> eventually pronounce upon them. Anyone who's had any involvement with the
> legal profession will know how long the process can take. In the meantime
> there's little *anyone* can do to stop anything in its tracks. Get back to
> reality.
I suppose it depends on how agressive you want to be in protecting
your rights. Did you not hear about the injunction taken out against
SuSE in Germany when all they had done is ship a product containing a
reference to another product whose name had a possibly dubious
connection to a trademark? In this case, if there's a stronger legal
case (and that really *does* depend on RISC OS Ltd's agreement with
Pace) then a similar injunction would surely be easy to get.
> > Even if RISC OS Ltd. do have exclusive rights to license RISC OS (of any
> > version) to other parties, if they don't take legal action to protect those
> > rights, then those rights become substantially less valuable.
> >
> "Even if"? Are you suggesting from your limited knowledge of their agreements
> that they haven't? Where do you find justification for that argument? ROSL
> have publicly stated that they believe that their rights have been
> undermined. Only a fool will take issue with that. Are you one?
If a company sits on intellectual property rights and does nothing
about infringements, I would suppose that it could potentially weaken
their case should they decide to take action at a later time. I'm not
justifying the violation of every copyright from here to Cambridge and
back - the usual kind of response to any discussion on such matters -
but RISC OS Ltd have clear knowledge of the VirtualAcorn product, yet
have only demonstrated frustration over the issue. (Keep reading -
I'll address your next concern below!)
> > Given that RISC OS Ltd. should know the importance of a legal defence of
> > their intellectual property rights, it's fair for a casual observer to
> > assume that those rights just don't apply in this case if RISC OS Ltd.
> > aren't visibly doing anything about the VirtualAcorn product.
>
> Another good arguing ploy. First you set a hypothesis based upon idle
> speculation; you admit that you don't know the content of ROSL's license. Now
> your'e using that shaky hypothesis to support your argument. The fact that
> the parties involved aren't slanging it out on UseNet doesn't mean they're
> not doing anything!
How long has the VirtualAcorn product been on sale? Is it still on
sale? Given that it still appears to be available indicates that no
conclusion has been reached in any mythical action that may be going
on "in secret" without the knowledge of most parties participating in
this discussion. (I actually don't care whether anyone is doing
anything about it or not, and I'm not justifying the actions of either
party.)
> It is grossly *unfair* for a casual observer, without any knowledge, to
> assume *anything* on such matters. I suggest you don't.
Here we are posting messages to a newsgroup - what do you expect? Free
legal advice and analysis? Of course we're just speculating! What do
you actually expect to get out of this? A definitive statement from
all legal teams concerned? You won't find that in
comp.sys.acorn.apps/misc!
> Come on, be objective! The discussion has *nothing* to do with VA being a
> "good idea" or even being "good for RISC OS", but *everything* to do with
> ROSLs putative exclusivity agreement, the exact terms of which none of us
> know. You're entitled to any opinion you wish, but it won't be supportable
> without *facts*.
This is your major concern, isn't it? That someone who isn't blatantly
trashing a company who, as far as you are concerned, have "ripped off"
RISC OS Ltd, is justifying that company's actions for "the benefit of
the platform". Well, I don't actually care about the RISC OS product
at all, and I don't see many particularly special things about the
platform that won't end up elsewhere.
But now that you've aired that particular concern, you can feel at
ease with yourself, especially since I'm not paying any attention to
it whatsoever.
Paul
Tony van der Hoff
pa...@boddie.net (Paul Boddie) wrote:
> Tony van der Hoff <to...@mk-net.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:<9637c50...@mk-net.demon.co.uk>...
[snip]
>
> > Come on, be objective! The discussion has *nothing* to do with VA being a
> > "good idea" or even being "good for RISC OS", but *everything* to do with
> > ROSLs putative exclusivity agreement, the exact terms of which none of us
> > know. You're entitled to any opinion you wish, but it won't be
> > supportable without *facts*.
>
> This is your major concern, isn't it? That someone who isn't blatantly
> trashing a company who, as far as you are concerned, have "ripped off" RISC
> OS Ltd, is justifying that company's actions for "the benefit of the
> platform". Well, I don't actually care about the RISC OS product at all,
> and I don't see many particularly special things about the platform that
> won't end up elsewhere.
>
What a strange conclusion to reach.
> But now that you've aired that particular concern, you can feel at ease
> with yourself, especially since I'm not paying any attention to it
> whatsoever.
>
What a blinkered view of life...
Paul Boddie
>
> The problem, AIUI, is that ROSL hold an *exclusive* licence from Pace for the
> distribution [1] of RISC OS for desktop use. That exclusivity is
> unrestricted, and version numbers are irrelevant.
From the RISC OS Ltd annual report for 2000:
"On March 5th 1999 RISCOS Ltd signed an exclusive 4 year world
wide licence agreement with Element 14 Ltd to complete the
development of RISC OS 4 and sell it into the Desktop computer
market."
Perhaps they have more rights with respect to RISC OS than this, but
surely they too would be worth bragging about in an annual report.
> From this, it follows that Pace would have been unable to grant Aaron a
> licence for the distribution of 3.1, or any other version. The ROSL business
> plan relied, quite legitimately, on this exclusivity. We, the bystanders, are
> quite unable, without full knowledge of the facts, to judge whether or not
> this has an impact upon their business.
Unless you actually have inside information, it does appear that
you're very eager to judge other people's commentary as "trolling" or
"speculation" whilst remaining unwilling to justify your own
contributions with anything approaching a substantial basis in fact.
Paul
Ralph Corderoy
Tony van der Hoff <to...@mk-net.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 19 Feb 2002, in message <23891c90.02021...@posting.google.com>,
> pa...@boddie.net (Paul Boddie) wrote:
> > Tony van der Hoff <to...@mk-net.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:<9637c50...@mk-net.demon.co.uk>...
[snip]
> What a strange conclusion to reach.
> What a blinkered view of life...
Is that being objective, or just advoiding the very good points Paul
made?
Ralph.
Tony van der Hoff
ra...@inputplus.demon.co.uk (Ralph Corderoy) wrote:
No, it was backing out of a pointless discussion. I made a fully reasoned
argument, which was countered by bigotry. I saw no new points (good or
otherwise) being made. There was nothing to avoid, nor respond to.
Steffen Huber
>
> Tony van der Hoff <to...@mk-net.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:<db51ad0...@mk-net.demon.co.uk>...
> > From this, it follows that Pace would have been unable to grant Aaron a
> > licence for the distribution of 3.1, or any other version. The ROSL
> > business plan relied, quite legitimately, on this exclusivity. We, the
> > bystanders, are quite unable, without full knowledge of the facts, to
> > judge whether or not this has an impact upon their business.
>
> Unless you actually have inside information, it does appear that
> you're very eager to judge other people's commentary as "trolling" or
> "speculation" whilst remaining unwilling to justify your own
> contributions with anything approaching a substantial basis in fact.
Foundation Newsletter 20 says the following:
"In March 1999 RISCOS Ltd entered into a Licence Agreement with
Element 14 Ltd for the future development and marketing of
RISC OS within the desktop market.
That Agreement means that no other company can have a licence to
distribute any version of RISC OS within our target market.
Use of RISC OS on a desktop or portable PC falls into our
target market."
Enough "inside information" for you? This is an offical statement from
RISCOS Ltd. - you only cite meagre evidence to support your view that
they are lying. *You* are the one who should substantiate his claims
with facts.
In the part I have snipped above you yourself cite a press release
from RO Ltd. as evidence to support your claim - so you only believe
some of what they say? Perhaps only those things that support your
claims?
Liam Gretton
>
> That Agreement means that no other company can have a licence to
> distribute any version of RISC OS within our target market. Use of RISC OS
> on a desktop or portable PC falls into our target market."
>
> Enough "inside information" for you? This is an offical statement from
> RISCOS Ltd. - you only cite meagre evidence to support your view that they
> are lying. *You* are the one who should substantiate his claims with
> facts.
It seems that the problem might be a misunderstanding between ROL and Pace
rather than ROL and VA.
Surely if VA are breaking the law, the product would have been withdrawn
while legal action took place. We've seen how VA reacted to the licensing
issues of John Kortink's software - quickly, with a public apology, and no
obvious intent to harm anybody's income or interests.
That VA are still free to sell their emulator with RO3.1 suggests that ROL
haven't taken legal action because the law hasn't been broken. That's why I
think ROL's various announcements about VA (thinly veiled though: they just
talk about 'RISC OS emulators') is pure FUD. They assert their sole license
to distribute RO for desktop use, but it sounds as if they're trying to
convince themselves of this rather than anyone else. Why keep going on
about this? If the law is being broken, get it sorted in court. They also
make the incorrect connection that use of an emulator means inevitable
software theft. This *really* pisses me off. I use RedSquirrel from time to
time, but there's not one stick of software I use with it that's been
stolen.
In using RedSquirrel (I haven't bought VA yet) I'm probably breaking the
license condition for RO4. I have RO4 installed with it that was otherwise
sitting around in its box unused. Two points here though: (a) in the three
copies of RO4 I have, there are no licence conditions included at all; (b)
even if the licence prevents me from using it with an emulator, who's going
to enforce this law, and what good would it do anyway? Who does it benefit?
The software is paid for and being used on one machine only. How does this
cause any harm to ROL?
That said, I don't use RS much, and not at all for serious work because it's
far too slow emulating an A7000 on my 600MHz PC. But should the day come
when I can run RO4 (or even 3.5+) at a usable speed on my PC, my RPC is
going in the cupboard.
--
Liam Gretton l...@star.le.ac.uk
Space Research Centre, http://www.src.le.ac.uk/
Physics and Astronomy Dept, phone +44 (0) 116 223 1039
University of Leicester, fax +44 (0) 116 252 2464
Leicester LE1 7RH, UK
Tony van der Hoff
Liam Gretton <l...@star.le.ac.uk> wrote:
> In article <3C7260BA...@gmx.de>, Steffen Huber
> <URL:mailto:steffe...@gmx.de> wrote:
> >
> > Foundation Newsletter 20 says the following:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > That Agreement means that no other company can have a licence to
> > distribute any version of RISC OS within our target market. Use of RISC
> > OS on a desktop or portable PC falls into our target market."
> >
> > Enough "inside information" for you? This is an offical statement from
> > RISCOS Ltd. - you only cite meagre evidence to support your view that
> > they are lying. *You* are the one who should substantiate his claims with
> > facts.
>
> It seems that the problem might be a misunderstanding between ROL and Pace
> rather than ROL and VA.
>
> Surely if VA are breaking the law, the product would have been withdrawn
> while legal action took place. We've seen how VA reacted to the licensing
> issues of John Kortink's software - quickly, with a public apology, and no
> obvious intent to harm anybody's income or interests.
>
> That VA are still free to sell their emulator with RO3.1 suggests that ROL
> haven't taken legal action because the law hasn't been broken.
Or maybe it's just that nobody *knows* who's broken it. Your first surmise
above seems quite reasonable, and is one that I voiced earlier.
So, envisage a scenario where ROSL say to VA "you're breaking the Law - stop
it", and VA responds "F off, we've gotta da licence". Note that the scenario
is now already radically different to that which involved JK. ROSL then
presumably will turn to Pace, saying something along the lines of "You're
letting VA undermine our exclusivity agreement - make them stop it". They say
... well, you can imagine. I'm not saying Pace don't care, but they've
probably got least to lose.
Under this scenario, the *only* way of establishing who's breaking the law
(if anyone) is to take the matter to a county court for a ruling. Only then
can injunctions be "slapped on" as someone simplisticly suggested. That takes
a long time. Meanwhile, all parties carry on the best they can, fully
convinced of their righteousness, and UseNet flourishes under the
speculation...
It is, however, not reasonable to assume the matter is lying dormant. It is
certainly unreasonable, at this stage, to accuse ROSL of spreading FUD. In
time, I guess things will become clearer, one way or another. On the other
hand, if ROSL decide that their limited resources are better spent on things
other than fighting a legal action, who can blame them? That doesn't mean
the situation has been equitably resolved though, does it?
I don't know, any more than any other contributor to this debate who will
turn out to be right; I've never said that I do, and note that I'm only
outlining a possible scenario. I do have a little more knowledge than I'm
prepared to publicly divulge, but given that most people here would rater
speculate than deal in facts, it really can have little bearing on this
discussion.
What is surprising, to me, is that there is a corpus of contributors to this
discussion who, without any supporting facts, are keen to discredit any
statements from ROSL, but will not hear of any possibility that one of the
two other parties may be wrong. When I try to redress the balance by pointing
this out, I am vilified. Fair enough, I don't care too much about that, but
ISTM that this has now become a religious argument, rather than one based
upon any rational thought.
As for your (LGJ) comments on "software theft", in particular regarding the
copying (note: not *using*) the originals you don't need to get "pissed off";
just live with your concience. From what you say, you'll have no problem
there. As in many other dubious activities in life, I doubt, like you,
whether anyone will prevent you from doing it.
However, you do exhibit a common misunderstanding: You don't need to be
expressly forbidden by a licence to make copies of copyright material; that
constraint is by default enshrined in copyright law.
If a law is inconvenient, feel free to ignore it; it's probably meant for
other people, and doesn't apply to you.
Ray Dawson
> Paul Boddie wrote:
> >
> > Tony van der Hoff <to...@mk-net.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:<db51ad0...@mk-net.demon.co.uk>...
> [snip RO Ltd. announcement]
> > > From this, it follows that Pace would have been unable to grant
> > > Aaron a licence for the distribution of 3.1, or any other version.
> > > The ROSL business plan relied, quite legitimately, on this
> > > exclusivity. We, the bystanders, are quite unable, without full
> > > knowledge of the facts, to judge whether or not this has an impact
> > > upon their business.
> >
> > Unless you actually have inside information, it does appear that
> > you're very eager to judge other people's commentary as "trolling" or
> > "speculation" whilst remaining unwilling to justify your own
> > contributions with anything approaching a substantial basis in fact.
> Foundation Newsletter 20 says the following: "In March 1999 RISCOS Ltd
> entered into a Licence Agreement with Element 14 Ltd for the future
> development and marketing of RISC OS within the desktop market.
The word future here is, I believe, of significance.
> That Agreement means that no other company can have a licence to
> distribute any version of RISC OS within our target market. Use of RISC
> OS on a desktop or portable PC falls into our target market."
Which in itself is an untrue statement as Castle had the distribution
rights to RISC OS 3.7 - gained I believe before ROL's agreement. It does,
however, put paid to the 'no other company' statement.
> Enough "inside information" for you? This is an offical statement from
> RISCOS Ltd. - you only cite meagre evidence to support your view that
> they are lying. *You* are the one who should substantiate his claims
> with facts.
I think 'official statements' from RISCOS Ltd can be taken with a pinch
of salt.
The FACT is that the current Virtual Acorn CDs are being scrapped due to
the misunderstanding with John Kortink, but a new CD build is in progress
which still includes RISC OS 3.11 - in spite of ROL's protestations.
Bob Potter
> Foundation Newsletter 20 says the following: "In March 1999 RISCOS Ltd
> entered into a Licence Agreement with Element 14 Ltd for the future
> development and marketing of RISC OS within the desktop market.
> That Agreement means that no other company can have a licence to
> distribute any version of RISC OS within our target market. Use of RISC
> OS on a desktop or portable PC falls into our target market."
>
> Enough "inside information" for you? This is an offical statement from
> RISCOS Ltd. - you only cite meagre evidence to support your view that
> they are lying. *You* are the one who should substantiate his claims
> with facts.
How about the following for facts. This is the announcement made in March
1999 and is taken from the RISCOS Ltd website.
<quote>
RISCOS Ltd
PRESS RELEASE 5th March 1999
RISCOS Ltd acquires license to develop and release RISC OS 4
Following extended negotiations with Acorn Computers Ltd, recently rebranded
as Element 14 Ltd, RISCOS Ltd is pleased to announce that it has now secured
an exclusive license to complete the development of RISC OS 4. It will bring
it to market as an upgrade for current Risc PC and A7000 / A7000+ users and
for new machines dedicated to the desktop market, within the next few
months.
Now that RISCOS Ltd has access to the full sources to RISC OS it should be
possible to work to remove the dependency of RISC OS on the current
peripheral chips such as IOMD and VIDC. Once this is done it will be
possible for many more manufacturers to produce RISC OS compatible products.
It is hoped for example that an upgrade will be available for existing Risc
PC users in order to keep their existing Risc PC case and replace the
motherboard with a new improved version this year.
Chief Executive of Element 14, Stan Boland said "I am proud to announce,
that after having originally developed RISC OS, Element 14 now feels that
the time is right to offer the other companies who have supported Acorn for
the past 20 years the chance to continue to develop the RISC OS market"
Senior Vice President of Marketing, Andy Mee went on to say that " By
licensing RISC OS 4 to RISCOS Ltd, there will be more chances for both new
and existing users to protect their current investment in Acorn computers
and also benefit from the advances that the dedicated RISC OS developer
community is able to offer in the future."
</quote>
This strongly suggests that the licence that RISCOS Ltd have is only for
development of RISC OS 4, not for other versions of the OS. It also
suggests that RISCOS Ltd only have access to source code, not ownership of
it. It certainly does not suggest that no other company can have a licence
to distribute ANY version of RISC OS. My understanding is that IP rights
that remained with Element 14 subsequently transferred to Pace.
Bob
--
Bob Potter | bob.p...@argonet.co.uk
Dave Lawton
> Paul Boddie wrote:
> >
> > Tony van der Hoff <to...@mk-net.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:<db51ad0...@mk-net.demon.co.uk>...
> [snip RO Ltd. announcement]
> > > From this, it follows that Pace would have been unable to grant Aaron a
> > > licence for the distribution of 3.1, or any other version. The ROSL
> > > business plan relied, quite legitimately, on this exclusivity. We, the
> > > bystanders, are quite unable, without full knowledge of the facts, to
> > > judge whether or not this has an impact upon their business.
> >
> > Unless you actually have inside information, it does appear that
> > you're very eager to judge other people's commentary as "trolling" or
> > "speculation" whilst remaining unwilling to justify your own
> > contributions with anything approaching a substantial basis in fact.
>
> Foundation Newsletter 20 says the following:
> "In March 1999 RISCOS Ltd entered into a Licence Agreement with
> Element 14 Ltd for the future development and marketing of
> RISC OS within the desktop market.
I don't know about the Foundation NewsLetter, but I would
expect it to have the same wording as the Press announcement
on http://www.riscos.com/news/news_items/PR050399.htm the
relevant bit I'll reproduce below.
RISCOS Ltd
PRESS RELEASE 5th March 1999
RISCOS Ltd acquires license to develop and release RISC OS 4
Following extended negotiations with Acorn Computers Ltd,
recently rebranded as Element 14 Ltd, RISCOS Ltd is pleased
to announce that it has now secured an exclusive license to
complete the development of RISC OS 4.
> That Agreement means that no other company can have a licence to
> distribute any version of RISC OS within our target market.
> Use of RISC OS on a desktop or portable PC falls into our
> target market."
It says nothing about other Versions, just RISC OS 4.
> Enough "inside information" for you? This is an offical statement from
> RISCOS Ltd. - you only cite meagre evidence to support your view that
> they are lying. *You* are the one who should substantiate his claims
> with facts.
>
> In the part I have snipped above you yourself cite a press release
> from RO Ltd. as evidence to support your claim - so you only believe
> some of what they say? Perhaps only those things that support your
> claims?
>
> Steffen
>
IF RISC OS Ltd have expanded their licence to cover other
versions, surely they would have made a press statement about it ?
--
Do I want a sig ? Na :)
druck
> I don't know about the Foundation NewsLetter, but I would
> expect it to have the same wording as the Press announcement
> on http://www.riscos.com/news/news_items/PR050399.htm the
> relevant bit I'll reproduce below.
[Snip]
> It says nothing about other Versions, just RISC OS 4.
Since when have press announcements covered every detail of a licence?
It may run to 100's pages and cover everything under the sun, for all
you know.
> IF RISC OS Ltd have expanded their licence to cover other
> versions, surely they would have made a press statement about it ?
Because full terms of the original license have not released in a short
statement, means you can infer nothing, and this entire thread is a waste of
time.
Dave D
druck <ne...@druck.freeuk.com> wrote:
<snip>
> Because full terms of the original license have not released in a
short
> statement, means you can infer nothing, and this entire thread is a
waste of
> time.
Sadly it is not only a waste of time, but another rather negative
thread which takes attention away from the more positive happenings
in the marketplace.
Personally I feel that ROL may have inadvertently set that negative
tone with their original comments on the VA subject.
Maybe they did not find it possible to look beyond the use of 3.1 on
VA and envisage the future prospects of selling more copies of RO4 to
those with desktop machines running later versions of VA.
Perhaps Aaron can tell us if that will become a practical reality in
the near future? Then maybe ROL can re-appraise the potential of
sales to all the VA users.
--
__ __
/__)ave /__)unn A.I. for RO4 in Lincs 01775 750535
A closed mouth gathers no foot.
Matthias Seifert
[...]
> Maybe they did not find it possible to look beyond the use of 3.1 on
> VA and envisage the future prospects of selling more copies of RO4 to
> those with desktop machines running later versions of VA.
> Perhaps Aaron can tell us if that will become a practical reality in
> the near future? Then maybe ROL can re-appraise the potential of
> sales to all the VA users.
The problem with that is (if my knowledge about the licence of RISCOS Ltd
is correct), that RISCOS Ltd is only allowed to deliver binaries in ROMs.
The only allowed exceptions to this seem to be "updates" which may be used
to replace "parts" of the ROM contents by code loaded into RAM. These
"updates" obviously not only cover bug fixes, but also things like Select
(which also explains why you have to own RISC OS 4 to be allowed to use
Select).
By this, they are simply not allowed to provide their RISC OS for use in
VirtualAcorn.
OTOH, if Pace really is allowed to provide RISC OS 3.11 for this purpose,
it seems very likely to me that they also are allowed to provide RISC OS
3.71 - or maybe even any newer variant of RISC OS developed by Pace (which
isn't called RISC OS 4). If this really is the case, it could well happen
that we'll see VirtualRPC which could not only be a strong competitor to
real RISC OS hardware (especially portables) but even more doesn't provide
any market at all to RISCOS Ltd...
Paul Boddie
> In message <58b4840b...@druck.freeuk.net>
> druck <ne...@druck.freeuk.com> wrote:
> <snip>
> > Because full terms of the original license have not released in a short
> > statement, means you can infer nothing, and this entire thread is a waste of
> > time.
>
> Sadly it is not only a waste of time, but another rather negative
> thread which takes attention away from the more positive happenings
> in the marketplace.
Yes, like the availability of VirtualAcorn in the first place. :-)
Actually, that is pretty much the only major piece of good news that
the RISC OS scene has had in ages that hasn't been about some "soon to
be released" product. (Or "soon to be announced" given the high
vapour levels in the RISC OS scene.) You can tell that there's a real
buzz around the product and what people can do with it, and yet it
seems to split the "community" down the middle between the pragmatist
faction (who want to use RISC OS or elements of RISC OS on modern
hardware) and the traditionalist faction (who want the pure-Acorn
solution).
Add some different elements of frustration with RISC OS from both
groups - the pragmatists want RISC OS available legitimately for
emulation, whereas the traditionalists want contemporary hardware
supported before the supply of legacy hardware runs out - and one can
see that this discussion is less likely to stick to copyrights and
licences as time progresses (and frustration increases).
Paul
Steffen Huber
> In article <4b0aa1831...@t-online.de>, Matthias Seifert
> <M.Se...@t-online.de> wrote:
>
> > Well, as UCITA is American law, it doesn't really care to me as a German
> > customer (and developer). :-)
>
Seeing the strange attitudes and non-knowledge of most of our politicians,
I fear the worst.
> > In Germany the situation is quite clear: As you do _buy_ (commercial)
> > software (and not just license it), it doesn't matter at all what is
> > written in a licence.
>
> How do you guys purchase the likes of Windows then?
We go into a shop?
Under German law, any kind of "shrink wrap licence" is not valid for
end customers. There are rights given by German law (BGB) that can't
be taken away from you. Like selling the software to someone else
(even "OEM-labelled" software which comes with a "only allowed to sell
with hardware" licence). Like making as many backup copies as you like.
Like changing/patching the software as you like.
Paul Boddie
[...]
> > > What a blinkered view of life...
The irony of this statement...
[...]
> No, it was backing out of a pointless discussion. I made a fully reasoned
> argument, which was countered by bigotry. I saw no new points (good or
> otherwise) being made. There was nothing to avoid, nor respond to.
It seems to me that you're fairly eager to call names in public
forums, yet very reluctant to address some of the more interesting
points of this discussion. A fair number of people are probably
wondering whether they are engaging in licence violation by running
VirtualAcorn or other emulator software with various versions of RISC
OS. Whilst we can't give definitive advice, it's still important for
people to seek (and receive) guidance in this area.
Will users have to license RISC OS 3.1 separately when/if RISC OS Ltd
comes down hard on VirtualAcorn? Will VirtualAcorn be forced out of
business by RISC OS Ltd, leaving users without any commercial support?
Of course, if you're one of the traditionalists who believes only in
the pure-Acorn solution for running RISC OS, then you're not going to
be interested in asking or answering these questions, but then at
least you shouldn't pretend that you're interested in exploring these
issues - it's far more honest to admit your position.
It's also interesting to consider other ex-Acorn intellectual property
that Pace owns, but since there isn't a BBC MOS Ltd badmouthing
VirtualBBC Corp while a group of platform die-hards insists that the
best way of running the BBC MOS is to upgrade to MOS Select running on
newly-sourced 6502 CPUs running at 300MHz, I would expect the debate
to be "more efficient".
Paul
Matthias Seifert
[...]
> Under German law, any kind of "shrink wrap licence" is not valid for
> end customers. There are rights given by German law (BGB) that can't
> be taken away from you.
[...]
> Like changing/patching the software as you like.
Really? I would say that "modifying at will" definitely conflicts with the
articles 69c and 69d UrHG.
Tony van der Hoff
pa...@boddie.net (Paul Boddie) wrote:
> Tony van der Hoff <to...@mk-net.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:<2e42460...@mk-net.demon.co.uk>...
>
>
> > No, it was backing out of a pointless discussion. I made a fully reasoned
> > argument, which was countered by bigotry. I saw no new points (good or
> > otherwise) being made. There was nothing to avoid, nor respond to.
>
> It seems to me that you're fairly eager to call names in public
> forums, yet very reluctant to address some of the more interesting
> points of this discussion. A fair number of people are probably
> wondering whether they are engaging in licence violation by running
> VirtualAcorn or other emulator software with various versions of RISC
> OS. Whilst we can't give definitive advice, it's still important for
> people to seek (and receive) guidance in this area.
>
Paul, I *am* extremely reluctant to address those issues. I emphasise that in
every post. The reason for that is not cowardice, but simply that I don't
know the answers. Even a practicing solicitor will be unable to pronounce
upon this matter without sight of the relevant documents, so what hope have
the self-appointed legal experts of UseNet got?
At risk of being accused of name-calling, I find it remarkably arrogant that
anyone here can profess to be able to give such guidance, based upon pure
speculation and guesswork on their part [1].
My contributions have only been to preach moderation, and to recommend an
open mind in this matter instead of jumping to conclusions. You seem to
regard moderation and logical thought to be nasty social diseases, which must
be eradicated from usenet in favour of speculation and rumour-mongering.
Your vituperative attacks on my posts would indicate that you are really
disinterested in the truth, in order to support your perception of the
situation. So be it, I'm not greatly concerned.
Despite what you and others try to read into my opinion, I am *not* anti VA
in any way. However, I am rather keen on seeing justice done by all parties,
whatever the outcome. ISTM there are contributors to this discussion who
perceive such justice to be a risk to VA's future, and therefore would rather
speculate that ROSL can't possibly be right (dragging up selective and
circumstantial evidence to prove their point), so VA has to be in the clear.
That opinion may be correct, but it may not be. I don't know, and, with
respect, neither do you.
[1] I quote:
" Here we are posting messages to a newsgroup - what do you expect? Free
" legal advice and analysis? Of course we're just speculating! What do you
" actually expect to get out of this? A definitive statement from all legal
" teams concerned? You won't find that in comp.sys.acorn.apps/misc!
--
Nemo
> since there isn't a BBC MOS Ltd badmouthing VirtualBBC Corp while a group
> of platform die-hards insists that the best way of running the BBC MOS is
> to upgrade to MOS Select running on newly-sourced 6502 CPUs running at
> 300MHz, I would expect the debate to be "more efficient".
LOL. Well said.
--
Nemo ne...@20000.org
Steffen Huber
> In article <3C7260BA...@gmx.de>, Steffen Huber
> <steffe...@gmx.de> wrote:
>
> > Foundation Newsletter 20 says the following: "In March 1999 RISCOS Ltd
> > entered into a Licence Agreement with Element 14 Ltd for the future
> > development and marketing of RISC OS within the desktop market.
> > That Agreement means that no other company can have a licence to
> > distribute any version of RISC OS within our target market. Use of RISC
> > OS on a desktop or portable PC falls into our target market."
> >
> > Enough "inside information" for you? This is an offical statement from
> > RISCOS Ltd. - you only cite meagre evidence to support your view that
> > they are lying. *You* are the one who should substantiate his claims
> > with facts.
>
> How about the following for facts. This is the announcement made in March
> 1999 and is taken from the RISCOS Ltd website.
>
> <quote>
> </quote>
>
> This strongly suggests that the licence that RISCOS Ltd have is only for
> development of RISC OS 4, not for other versions of the OS.
Yes. RO Ltd. have always said that they only have the sources for RO 4.
E.g. they have said that they can not support RO 3.7 users because they
don't have the sources for that version.
> It also suggests that RISCOS Ltd only have access to source code, not
> ownership of it.
Yes. RO Ltd. always have said this. Pace owns RISC OS. RO Ltd. have
a licence. The content of this very licence is what we are discussing
here after all.
> It certainly does not suggest that no other company can have a licence
> to distribute ANY version of RISC OS.
But it certainly does not say that RO Ltd. *do not* have such an exclusive
licence, does it? This is my whole point. The 1999 press release does not
contradict the paragraphs from Foundation Newsletter 20 I cited.
I hope it is clear that no press release on earth will contain complete
licence details of anything - licences are generally complicated things,
worded carefully by a bunch of lawyers. Just look what confusion the
GPL has generated.
Now try again to substantiate the claim that RO Ltd. do not hold an
exclusive RO licence for the desktop.
> My understanding is that IP rights
> that remained with Element 14 subsequently transferred to Pace.
Correct. Relevance for our discussion?
Steffen Huber
> In article <3C7260BA...@gmx.de>, Steffen Huber
> <URL:mailto:steffe...@gmx.de> wrote:
> > Foundation Newsletter 20 says the following:
> > [snip]
> >
> > That Agreement means that no other company can have a licence to
> > distribute any version of RISC OS within our target market. Use of RISC OS
> > on a desktop or portable PC falls into our target market."
> >
> > Enough "inside information" for you? This is an offical statement from
> > RISCOS Ltd. - you only cite meagre evidence to support your view that they
> > are lying. *You* are the one who should substantiate his claims with
> > facts.
>
> It seems that the problem might be a misunderstanding between ROL and Pace
> rather than ROL and VA.
Possibly. If you believe RO Ltd. when they say that they hold an exclusive
RISC OS desktop licence, and if you believe VirtualAcorn/3QD that they have
an agreement with Pace to ship RO 3.1. Both claims can be actually true,
and it is all Pace's fault for allowing VirtualAcorn/3QD to distribute
RO 3.1.
> Surely if VA are breaking the law, the product would have been withdrawn
> while legal action took place.
Depends on UK legislation and if RO Ltd. really want to take the issue
to the courts. Not sure about both of them ;-)
> We've seen how VA reacted to the licensing issues of John Kortink's
> software - quickly, with a public apology, and no obvious intent to
> harm anybody's income or interests.
Rereading the first posting from Aaron, I can't agree at all.
> That VA are still free to sell their emulator with RO3.1 suggests that ROL
> haven't taken legal action because the law hasn't been broken.
It suggests no such thing.
> That's why I think ROL's various announcements about VA (thinly veiled
> though: they just talk about 'RISC OS emulators') is pure FUD.
It is more a description of their point of view. I don't consider it to
be FUD.
> They assert their sole license to distribute RO for desktop use, but it
> sounds as if they're trying to convince themselves of this rather than
> anyone else. Why keep going on about this?
They are trying to protect their licence without going to court?
> If the law is being broken, get it sorted in court.
Perhaps they don't want to hurt VA/3QD, perhaps they don't have the money
for a lawyer, perhaps they fear that taking that issue to court will
make current RO users unhappy, perhaps they feel that they should
use their time to do more productive things...
I don't understand why you equal "they don't go to court" with
"they are lying about their licence". I can only speak from personal
experience: there were many cases where I could have taken things
to court. I didn't bother, because most of the time it would have
cost me more than what could have been gained.
> They also make the incorrect connection that use of an emulator means
> inevitable software theft.
Well, they equal software theft with breach of licence. From their point
of view, this is understandable.
> This *really* pisses me off. I use RedSquirrel from time to
> time, but there's not one stick of software I use with it that's been
> stolen.
>
> In using RedSquirrel (I haven't bought VA yet) I'm probably breaking the
> license condition for RO4.
Perhaps, I don't know UK legislation good enough to be in a position to
comment.
> I have RO4 installed with it that was otherwise
> sitting around in its box unused. Two points here though: (a) in the three
> copies of RO4 I have, there are no licence conditions included at all;
Well, then there are no special licence conditions which apply for you.
You can do anything with it that the UK legislation allows for copyrighted
work/software. I guess there is some kind of a "default licence" in
UK legislation?
> (b) even if the licence prevents me from using it with an emulator,
> who's going to enforce this law, and what good would it do anyway?
> Who does it benefit? The software is paid for and being used on one
> machine only. How does this cause any harm to ROL?
I find that to be a strange attitude. Just because you don't agree with any
law or licence does not give you the right to break it.
It is the same attitude a lot of posters display here: "Hey, I think VA
is a good thing for the RISC OS market, so we shouldn't harm them even
if they act illegaly". To be honest, I find that attitude very worrying.
> That said, I don't use RS much, and not at all for serious work because it's
> far too slow emulating an A7000 on my 600MHz PC.
Much the same for me, but substitute 600 MHz for 1 GHz.
> But should the day come when I can run RO4 (or even 3.5+) at a usable
> speed on my PC, my RPC is going in the cupboard.
I do not dispute the usefulness of a fast PC-based RISC OS emulator. It
would be great to have one. But does it matter wrt our current discussion?
Steffen Huber
> In article <3C7260BA...@gmx.de>, Steffen Huber
> <steffe...@gmx.de> wrote:
> > Paul Boddie wrote:
> > >
> > > Tony van der Hoff <to...@mk-net.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > news:<db51ad0...@mk-net.demon.co.uk>...
> > [snip RO Ltd. announcement]
> > > > From this, it follows that Pace would have been unable to grant
> > > > Aaron a licence for the distribution of 3.1, or any other version.
> > > > The ROSL business plan relied, quite legitimately, on this
> > > > exclusivity. We, the bystanders, are quite unable, without full
> > > > knowledge of the facts, to judge whether or not this has an impact
> > > > upon their business.
> > >
> > > Unless you actually have inside information, it does appear that
> > > you're very eager to judge other people's commentary as "trolling" or
> > > "speculation" whilst remaining unwilling to justify your own
> > > contributions with anything approaching a substantial basis in fact.
>
> > Foundation Newsletter 20 says the following: "In March 1999 RISCOS Ltd
> > entered into a Licence Agreement with Element 14 Ltd for the future
> > development and marketing of RISC OS within the desktop market.
>
> The word future here is, I believe, of significance.
Really? I don't understand your point.
> > That Agreement means that no other company can have a licence to
> > distribute any version of RISC OS within our target market. Use of RISC
> > OS on a desktop or portable PC falls into our target market."
>
> Which in itself is an untrue statement as Castle had the distribution
> rights to RISC OS 3.7 - gained I believe before ROL's agreement. It does,
> however, put paid to the 'no other company' statement.
Well, I have not posted the "Castle paragraph" which followed what I
have cited. I thought that everybody following this discussion knew
that by now. Obviously I was wrong, and I should subsequently post
everything in every post :-(
> > Enough "inside information" for you? This is an offical statement from
> > RISCOS Ltd. - you only cite meagre evidence to support your view that
> > they are lying. *You* are the one who should substantiate his claims
> > with facts.
>
> I think 'official statements' from RISCOS Ltd can be taken with a pinch
> of salt.
Really? Why?
> The FACT is that the current Virtual Acorn CDs are being scrapped due to
> the misunderstanding with John Kortink, but a new CD build is in progress
> which still includes RISC OS 3.11 - in spite of ROL's protestations.
JK's case and RO Ltd.'s case are of course totally different. I don't know
much about UK legislation, but the following scenario would be possible
under German law:
VA have a written agreement from Pace that they are allowed to distribute
RO 3.11 with their product. Everybody knows that Pace owns all versions
of RISC OS, so VA can believe "in good faith" that Pace are actually
allowed to give them this "distribution licence". The worst thing
that could happen to VA would be that the court rules that Pace were
not allowed to give this licence to VA, and that therefore this
licence is now void. Because this was not obvious for VA, they can't
be hold responsible for this breach of licence. They just have to
stop selling VA after the court ruling.
This means that VA can happily sell their product until any court
ruling. Which means additional money for them. From their point of view:
why should they stop? They have nothing to lose.
Liam Gretton
> Liam Gretton wrote:
> > It seems that the problem might be a misunderstanding between ROL and Pace
> > rather than ROL and VA.
>
> Possibly. If you believe RO Ltd. when they say that they hold an exclusive
> RISC OS desktop licence, and if you believe VirtualAcorn/3QD that they have
> an agreement with Pace to ship RO 3.1. Both claims can be actually true,
> and it is all Pace's fault for allowing VirtualAcorn/3QD to distribute
> RO 3.1.
That's the scenario I'm beginning to favour (in the absence of any facts
of course ;-)
> > We've seen how VA reacted to the licensing issues of John Kortink's
> > software - quickly, with a public apology, and no obvious intent to
> > harm anybody's income or interests.
>
> Rereading the first posting from Aaron, I can't agree at all.
Ok. But he did make a public apology and seems to have made an effort to
put things right. Hasn't stopped the rest of us arguing the toss about
licences though!
> > They assert their sole license to distribute RO for desktop use, but it
> > sounds as if they're trying to convince themselves of this rather than
> > anyone else. Why keep going on about this?
>
> They are trying to protect their licence without going to court?
But that's the point of the dispute here though, isn't it? Some of us
think VA are breaking the license conditions and some of us think ROL have
no say in what Pace does with RO3.1. If you're of the opinion that ROL's
license only applies to RO4, then their license isn't being infringed and
their comments about emulator use become FUD.
This is where we're stuck in the debate as usual - lack of facts, in this
case about the true nature of the rights ROL have to RO.
> > If the law is being broken, get it sorted in court.
>
> Perhaps they don't want to hurt VA/3QD, perhaps they don't have the money
> for a lawyer, perhaps they fear that taking that issue to court will
> make current RO users unhappy, perhaps they feel that they should
> use their time to do more productive things...
I'm a user, and I feel that ROL's current stance is unhelpful. I'm branded
a software thief for running RO on an emulator, so I'm not happy. But if
they don't feel it necessary to protect their rights and are hoping to
make do with comments to Foundation users, how seriously do they take
their business?
The last foundation newsletter in its latest rant about emulator use
includes this sentence:
"Beware. You have been warned. The protection of intellectual property
rights is a very important issue for all companies."
Important enough to pursue in the courts? Or only important enough for a
monthly whinge to a subset of a small userbase?
> I don't understand why you equal "they don't go to court" with "they are
> lying about their licence".
I don't think ROL are lying about their license, and I've not said that.
But I believe they've got the wrong end of the stick somewhere, or that
their argument should be with Pace rather than VA and its users.
> I can only speak from personal experience: there were many cases where I
> could have taken things to court. I didn't bother, because most of the
> time it would have cost me more than what could have been gained.
But wouldn't you consider it more carefully if you believed your
livelihood was at stake?
> > They also make the incorrect connection that use of an emulator means
> > inevitable software theft.
>
> Well, they equal software theft with breach of licence. From their point
> of view, this is understandable.
Yes it is, but the term they use is 'software theft', not 'breach of
licence'.
Another snippet from the recent Foundation newsletter:
"A further point that must be made is that there is no allowance
within the End User License Agreements for RISC OS upgrades or
RISC OS based computers for the copying of RISC OS ROM images
from a Risc PC, A5000 etc for use on a PC.
Any such use is software theft and is illegal."
As I've copied a RO ROM image to my PC, and even though those ROMs are
paid for and not used in another machine (they're sitting in the box), I'm
a software thief.
And though I may have misunderstood, "that there is no allowance
within the End User License Agreements for RISC OS upgrades" may mean that
no one can sell their old RO3.x ROMs - breach of license and software
theft. But no one bats an eyelid when someone flogs their old RO3.7 ROMs.
(This point could be irrelevant, as I don't quite understand this
paragraph).
> > in the three copies of RO4 I have, there are no licence conditions
> > included at all;
> Well, then there are no special licence conditions which apply for you.
> You can do anything with it that the UK legislation allows for copyrighted
> work/software. I guess there is some kind of a "default licence" in
> UK legislation?
I guess. But nonetheless, I wouldn't dream of giving away or selling
copies to anyone else, and I wouldn't even use the images with RedSquirrel
if the ROMs were installed in a machine. See, I may be a software thief in
ROL's eyes, but I really don't want to hurt their sales. I've signed up
for Select, even though it's been a waste of money so far (but I live in
hope).
> > (b) even if the licence prevents me from using it with an emulator,
> > who's going to enforce this law, and what good would it do anyway?
> > Who does it benefit? The software is paid for and being used on one
> > machine only. How does this cause any harm to ROL?
>
> I find that to be a strange attitude. Just because you don't agree with any
> law or licence does not give you the right to break it.
If I hadn't spelled out how I've broken the license, no-one would ever
know, as this heinous crime has been committed within the walls of one
small room in Leicester, and up until now the only witness was me and
there is no victim.
IMHO it's a silly restriction that harms the user and doesn't do the
license holder any good either. As this thread has demonstrated, licenses
are typically cryptically worded, vague and unnecessarily restrictive.
I've decided that for my use I can break the agreement. Has no-one ever
disassembled part of RO? No-one would moan about that but it's probably
breaking the license conditions too.
> It is the same attitude a lot of posters display here: "Hey, I think VA
> is a good thing for the RISC OS market, so we shouldn't harm them even
> if they act illegaly". To be honest, I find that attitude very worrying.
It's not my attitude, I just don't see why I should take ROL's word about
its legality over that of VA.
> I do not dispute the usefulness of a fast PC-based RISC OS emulator. It
> would be great to have one. But does it matter wrt our current discussion?
Yes, because if you take ROL's word for it an emulator's usefulness is
academic because you're breaking the law using it at all.
I'd just like to see ROL either live with VA or sort out their problem so
that I, as a user, can get on with my life without finding myself stuck in
the middle of the dispute. My ideal solution would be for ROL to see the
light and find a way of letting VA sell an emulator with RO4, but with
their current attitude that's deeply unlikely :-(
Ralph Corderoy
> Perhaps Aaron can tell us if that will become a practical reality in
> the near future? Then maybe ROL can re-appraise the potential of
> sales to all the VA users.
The unreleased versions of Red Squirrel can currently run RISC OS
Select with the RISC PC model using JIT, i.e. with substantially better
performance than the last public Red Squirrel release.
It's performance will only improve further with improvements to host
hardware and Red Squirrel's implementation, e.g. a better JIT.
If or when this gets released who knows.
Cheers,
Ralph.
Steffen Huber
> On 20 Feb, Steffen Huber <steffe...@gmx.de> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > Under German law, any kind of "shrink wrap licence" is not valid for
> > end customers. There are rights given by German law (BGB) that can't
> > be taken away from you.
> [...]
> > Like changing/patching the software as you like.
>
> Really? I would say that "modifying at will" definitely conflicts with the
> articles 69c and 69d UrHG.
Depends on your interpretation. 69d(1) allows you to do basically anything,
because it is very easy to argue that you just wanted to correct a mistake!
BGH ruled that e.g. if there are technical obstacles that might prohibit
you from making a backup copy, it is allowed to crack the software.
69e also gives you a lot of freedom - reverse engineering is basically
allowed for everything that is not publically documented. IIRC, the BGH
ruled that if e.g. a standard costs money to obtain, it is "not
publically documented".
But all this is only UrHG. BGB gives you a lot more rights concerning
"product use". It is all really complicated, at least for non-lawyers.
And I guess the lawyers are sometimes confised, too, but won't admit
it ;-)
Sorry to our English readers who are probably not interested in reading
interpretations of German law ;-)
Martin Wuerthner
Matthias Seifert <M.Se...@t-online.de> wrote:
> On 20 Feb, Steffen Huber <steffe...@gmx.de> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > Under German law, any kind of "shrink wrap licence" is not valid for
> > end customers. There are rights given by German law (BGB) that can't
> > be taken away from you.
> [...]
> > Like changing/patching the software as you like.
>
> Really? I would say that "modifying at will" definitely conflicts with
> the articles 69c and 69d UrHG.
You cannot change the software "as you like". However, you are allowed to
reverse engineer and change it in order to allow interoperability with
other software and to fix bugs. In both cases, if I remember correctly,
you may only do this after the software manufacturer has failed to correct
the problem within a reasonable period of time.
This is European law, but it may not have found its way into each
individual country's legislation (yet).
Martin
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Wuerthner MW Software mar...@mw-software.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Walker
Steve Drain <steve...@kappa.zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
> [ For RISCOS Ltd., ] VA5000 is unlikely to be a problem itself, but the
> development of a JIT VARiscPC would be.
You should see the latest builds of Red Squirrel - my 800 MHz PC (not fast
these days!) runs WebsterXL quicker than my StrongARM Risc PC! :-)
--
Richard.
"I got something to say that might cause you pain."
Paul Boddie
> Bob Potter wrote:
> > My understanding is that IP rights
> > that remained with Element 14 subsequently transferred to Pace.
>
> Correct. Relevance for our discussion?
[Rewind...]
> > In article <3C7260BA...@gmx.de>, Steffen Huber
> > <steffe...@gmx.de> wrote:
> >
> > > Foundation Newsletter 20 says the following: "In March 1999 RISCOS Ltd
> > > entered into a Licence Agreement with Element 14 Ltd for the future
> > > development and marketing of RISC OS within the desktop market.
I suppose the above statement attempts to rule out the possibility
that the RISC OS Ltd licence was renegotiated with Pace. Therefore,
any public information about the RISC OS Ltd licence from that time
might still apply to the licence as it is today, but who knows?
Paul
Paul Boddie
>
[Quote inserted into context]
> " Here we are posting messages to a newsgroup - what do you expect? Free
> " legal advice and analysis? Of course we're just speculating! What do you
> " actually expect to get out of this? A definitive statement from all legal
> " teams concerned? You won't find that in comp.sys.acorn.apps/misc!
>
> At risk of being accused of name-calling, I find it remarkably arrogant that
> anyone here can profess to be able to give such guidance, based upon pure
> speculation and guesswork on their part [1].
Well, all we can do is to give advice based on probabilities to
questions like this: "Is it OK to use the VirtualAcorn product with
the supplied RISC OS ROMs?" But certainly, it's better to attempt to
give an answer like the following (paraphrased from a contribution
seen in this thread): "If VA were given permission and it turns out
that Pace weren't allowed to grant permission, then Pace are
responsible."
Of course, we don't know for sure whether this statement holds water,
but it's far more informed than merely saying, "Emulation is evil and
if you touch VirtualAcorn, you're doing more than anyone else to flush
the entire RISC OS scene down the toilet." Not that I'm claiming that
you, Tony, are saying such things but, in certain circles, emulation
has this "warez-centric" reputation that really isn't justified.
Myself, I'm just interested to see how all this turns out. ;-)
Paul
Liam Gretton
> You should see the latest builds of Red Squirrel - my 800 MHz PC (not fast
> these days!) runs WebsterXL quicker than my StrongARM Risc PC! :-)
Bong! The death knell of native RISC OS hardware tolls...
Matthias Seifert
[...]
> The unreleased versions of Red Squirrel can currently run RISC OS
> Select with the RISC PC model using JIT, i.e. with substantially better
> performance than the last public Red Squirrel release.
> It's performance will only improve further with improvements to host
> hardware and Red Squirrel's implementation, e.g. a better JIT.
> If or when this gets released who knows.
Would it really make sense to release (for free) a version of RedSquirrel
with JIT while someone else still tries to sell VirtualA5000?
The problem with VirtualRPC on the other hand seems to be that RISCOS Ltd
already made clear that they aren't interested (for whatever reason,
including that they simply may not be allowed to do so) to provide RISC OS
for use with an emulator, and thus it may turn out to be quite a problem
to get a version of RISC OS to legally include with VirtualRPC.
OTOH if it was legal to use RISC OS 3.11 with VirtualA5000, why should it
be illegal to do the same with RISC OS 3.71 and VirtualRPC (provided that
such an agreement can be achieved with Pace [again]).
Michael Gilbert
As I found when clarifying the IP rights on the stuff I have on the
Archiology site, Element 14 is the division of Pace that Pace ask about
copyright issues in respect of legacy Acorn IP. Of course, since
Archiology doesn't distribute ROM images, I've not had any flak from
ROL. Indeed, I asked them at the same time as Pace, and got a positive
response immediately, whereas Pace took a bit of prompting.
I'm not going to do a "me too" on Liam Gretton's long post on this
topic, but there is a huge need for people to put down their handbags.
VA and RedSquirrel exist. They will not stop existing. Whatever fuss ROL
make, it won't stop piracy or theft. Most people, however, ain't pirates
or thieves.
Whether Pace were right to permit distribution of RO3.11 by VirtualAcorn
or not is a colossal distraction. ROL need to focus hard on getting
stuff moving forward, as do the hardware companies.
If selling legacy into sites which have already jumped ship helps keep
RISC OS use alive where it would otherwise have been totally abandoned,
I can see absolutely no problem at all.
Cheers
Mike
--
Michael Gilbert: in his own write
***** Error: Keyboard not found *****
******** Press F1 to continue *******
Stuart Marshall
Bob Potter <bob.p...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> This strongly suggests that the licence that RISCOS Ltd have is only for
> development of RISC OS 4, not for other versions of the OS.
Of course. ROL recently said they could not offer any support for
RISC OS versions earlier than version 4.x. They can't have it both
ways...
Regards,
--
Stuart Marshall, Spidersoft - www.spidersoft.co.uk
Recovering the wasted years - www.miketramp.com
Ralph Corderoy
> Would it really make sense to release (for free) a version of
> RedSquirrel with JIT while someone else still tries to sell
> VirtualA5000?
They're intending to be two different beasts. VA supplies a
pre-configured Red Squirrel along with much software. Red Squirrel
doesn't even come with a ROM image. The former is aimed squarely at
the commodity market.
> The problem with VirtualRPC on the other hand seems to be that RISCOS
> Ltd already made clear that they aren't interested (for whatever
> reason, including that they simply may not be allowed to do so) to
> provide RISC OS for use with an emulator, and thus it may turn out to
> be quite a problem to get a version of RISC OS to legally include
> with VirtualRPC.
I see the problem for VirtualRPC but a plain Red Squirrel release, that
supports OSes as diverse as Linux/ARM, RISC OS, and RISC iX, but
doesn't ship with any of them, wouldn't be a problem. It's up to the
user how and where they obtained the, possibly completely free, OS they
run on it.
> OTOH if it was legal to use RISC OS 3.11 with VirtualA5000, why
> should it be illegal to do the same with RISC OS 3.71 and VirtualRPC
> (provided that such an agreement can be achieved with Pace [again]).
I don't know. Regardless, I don't see it is the concern of a hardware
emulator.
Cheers,
Ralph.
Matthias Seifert
> In message <4b0bc0567...@t-online.de>
> Matthias Seifert <M.Se...@t-online.de> wrote:
> > On 20 Feb, Steffen Huber <steffe...@gmx.de> wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > Under German law, any kind of "shrink wrap licence" is not valid for
> > > end customers. There are rights given by German law (BGB) that can't
> > > be taken away from you.
> > [...]
> > > Like changing/patching the software as you like.
> >
> > Really? I would say that "modifying at will" definitely conflicts with
> > the articles 69c and 69d UrHG.
> You cannot change the software "as you like". However, you are allowed to
> reverse engineer and change it in order to allow interoperability with
> other software and to fix bugs.
Yes, that's what I recall, too. :-)
> In both cases, if I remember correctly, you may only do this after the
> software manufacturer has failed to correct the problem within a
> reasonable period of time.
Hmmm, I am not aware that I saw that - but OTOH this surely would make
sense.
druck
> In message <na.ef75d94b0b.a...@argonet.co.uk>
> Bob Potter <bob.p...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > This strongly suggests that the licence that RISCOS Ltd have is only for
> > development of RISC OS 4, not for other versions of the OS.
>
> Of course. ROL recently said they could not offer any support for
> RISC OS versions earlier than version 4.x. They can't have it both
> ways...
Yes they can. It is perfectly possible to own the distribution rights to
software, but not to be in possession of the source for and old version, so
then decline to offer support for this version.
Liam Gretton
But the burning question that would stop a lot of speculation is do they
actually have any rights to version of RO other than v4?
Dickon Hood
: On Tue, 19 Feb 2002, Richard Walker wrote:
:> You should see the latest builds of Red Squirrel - my 800 MHz PC (not fast
:> these days!) runs WebsterXL quicker than my StrongARM Risc PC! :-)
: Bong! The death knell of native RISC OS hardware tolls...
Frankly that happened what it became clear that companies couldn't flog
machines that were much faster than the 'current' generation of RPCs due
to inadequacies in the OS.
I know at least one ex-regular poster to this hierachy who as long ago as
about 1996 or 1997 (I forget which) was talking about JIT emulation of
RISC OS machines on x86 hardware as being a: cheaper than native hardware,
and b: faster.
I'm fairly surprised it's taken as long as it has. But it's frankly not
surprising.
Oh, and before anyone mentions the XScale and Omega and vapour like that:
I'll belive it when I see it, and anyway, I can now buy a dual 1x00MHz
Athlon box (I forget 'x') for not a lot more than the cost of new RISC
OS-capable hardware, and that runs Linux / BSD natively too... And this
is before we get into *proper* hardware...
No, I'm *not* happy with this state of affairs: I would like to be running
a RISC OS GUI (*not* the OS, which is simply not up to the job, but the
GUI has yet to be bettered and the rest of the UI is tolerable) on
something decent. It has its shortcomings, but it has definite strong
points. It's just a pity the disadvantages outweigh the advantages...
--
Dickon Hood
Due to the 'Millennium Bug' hype, my .sig is temporarily unavailable.
Normal service will be resumed as soon as possible. We apologise for the
inconvenience in the mean time.
Tony van der Hoff
Gretton <l...@star.le.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Feb 2002, druck wrote:
>
> > On 20 Feb 2002 Stuart Marshall <stu...@spidersoft.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > Of course. ROL recently said they could not offer any support for RISC
> > > OS versions earlier than version 4.x. They can't have it both ways...
> >
> > Yes they can. It is perfectly possible to own the distribution rights to
> > software, but not to be in possession of the source for and old version,
> > so then decline to offer support for this version.
>
> But the burning question that would stop a lot of speculation is do they
> actually have any rights to version of RO other than v4?
>
They say they do, as you know very well. You have an answer to your
"burning question", which you are choosing to ignore. Why do you doubt them?
What is the utility of speculating differently?
Steffen Huber
> In message <ant18145...@kappa.zetnet.co.uk>
> Steve Drain <steve...@kappa.zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > [ For RISCOS Ltd., ] VA5000 is unlikely to be a problem itself, but the
> > development of a JIT VARiscPC would be.
>
> You should see the latest builds of Red Squirrel - my 800 MHz PC (not fast
> these days!) runs WebsterXL quicker than my StrongARM Risc PC! :-)
Judging by the VA performance on my 1 GHz PC, I doubt that. And using
the old RedSquirrel version with any decent screen resolution slows
it down to a crawl. I am sure that the performance is now much better,
but I don't believe in overall performance gains of factor 100.
Graeme Barnes
> Richard Walker wrote:
> > In message <ant18145...@kappa.zetnet.co.uk>
> > Steve Drain <steve...@kappa.zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > [ For RISCOS Ltd., ] VA5000 is unlikely to be a problem itself, but
the
> > > development of a JIT VARiscPC would be.
> >
> > You should see the latest builds of Red Squirrel - my 800 MHz PC (not
fast
> > these days!) runs WebsterXL quicker than my StrongARM Risc PC! :-)
>
> Judging by the VA performance on my 1 GHz PC, I doubt that. And using
> the old RedSquirrel version with any decent screen resolution slows
> it down to a crawl. I am sure that the performance is now much better,
> but I don't believe in overall performance gains of factor 100.
It depends on your application. HostFS appears significantly faster than
ADFS on a RiscPC so file based apps can be much faster. The memory bandwidth
is faster than on a RiscPC but slower than the cache so again this will be
affected by the type of App you are running.
RedSquirrel 0.5 and VirtualA5000 don't bother blitting video data when it
isn't necessary so high res modes have much less effect on the speed than
they used to. This doesn't have too much of an effect in VA as the video
bandwidth is quite low but in RiscPC mode I get 70fps at 1280x1024, 256
colours with no noticeable change in speed. Even 32k/16m colours are OK if
you're not doing too much on screen.
Graeme
Graeme Barnes
"Paul Vigay" <pa...@vigay.spamtrap.com> wrote in message
news:4b0c41b...@vigay.spamtrap.com...
> Surely, Red Squirrel could just bundle a copy of RISC OS 4 and add 120
quid
> or whatever to the price?
Paul Middleton has already said that ROL are not in a position to license
RO4
for distribution with an emulator. If only it were that easy...
Graeme
Matthias Seifert
> In article <4b0bd3ac0...@t-online.de>,
> Matthias Seifert <M.Se...@t-online.de> wrote:
> > The problem with VirtualRPC on the other hand seems to be that RISCOS
> > Ltd already made clear that they aren't interested (for whatever
> > reason, including that they simply may not be allowed to do so) to
> > provide RISC OS for use with an emulator, and thus it may turn out to
> > be quite a problem to get a version of RISC OS to legally include with
> > VirtualRPC.
> They could always do what VirtualPC do on the Apple Mac - and that's
> include a full copy of the OS with the emulator, and add the relevant
> charge to the top.
> Ie. VirtualPC for the Mac includes a copy of Windows and costs the
> relevant amount. AFAIK you cannot purchase VirtualPC without an OS, so
> Microsoft are always going to get a commission for a copy of Windows.
> Surely, Red Squirrel could just bundle a copy of RISC OS 4 and add 120
> quid or whatever to the price?
Sure. But the difference between this and VirtualPC/Windows would be, that
you weren't able to use RISC OS 4 straight out of the box. You would have
to make a copy of it first (and I really don't see how to do this without
some [expensive] extra hardware) to be able to use it with VirtualRPC.
While the legal aspects of this would be no problem in Germany, I am not
sure at all about the legallity of it in the UK (and I'm pretty sure that
this is the much bigger market for that product).
Of course there is a loophole to it: Bundle VirtualRPC with a copy of RISC
OS 4 _and_ a copy of Select. RISCOS Ltd would be allowed to sell that as
they still sell RISC OS in ROM plus an update to it on CD and the user can
just throw the ROMs straigt into the cupboard while installing Select for
use with VirtualRPC. The only drawback of that for the user would be, that
he has to pay quite a lot of money for it - a solution based on RISC OS
3.71 may be a lot less expensive...
Matthias Seifert
> "Paul Vigay" <pa...@vigay.spamtrap.com> wrote in message
> news:4b0c41b...@vigay.spamtrap.com...
> > Surely, Red Squirrel could just bundle a copy of RISC OS 4 and add 120
> > quid or whatever to the price?
> Paul Middleton has already said that ROL are not in a position to
> license RO4 for distribution with an emulator.
Well, I think his idea was that RISCOS Ltd doesn't has to do so. Just as
Microsoft (surely) didn't license Windows for use with an emulator.
The bigger problem seems to be to me, that Paul Middleton (in my eyes)
made quite clear that he dislikes the whole idea of emulated RISC OS
hardware and that he thus simply may not _want_ to provide a solution for
the problem we're just discussing about...
Ralph Corderoy
> They could always do what VirtualPC do on the Apple Mac - and that's
> include a full copy of the OS with the emulator, and add the relevant
> charge to the top.
>
> Ie. VirtualPC for the Mac includes a copy of Windows and costs the
> relevant amount. AFAIK you cannot purchase VirtualPC without an OS,
> so Microsoft are always going to get a commission for a copy of
> Windows.
Or VA could always do what VMware do and sell the product without an OS
allowing the user to run one or more of their choice on it.
I don't see Microsoft chasing VMware about allowing the possibility.
Cheers,
Ralph.
David Bradforth
>Ie. VirtualPC for the Mac includes a copy of Windows and costs the relevant
>amount. AFAIK you cannot purchase VirtualPC without an OS, so Microsoft
>are
>always going to get a commission for a copy of Windows.
You can - as an upgrade; and I'm fairly sure it's available by itself.
Steffen Huber
> "Steffen Huber" <steffe...@gmx.de> wrote in message
> news:3C74CA5D...@gmx.de...
> > Richard Walker wrote:
> > > In message <ant18145...@kappa.zetnet.co.uk>
> > > Steve Drain <steve...@kappa.zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > > > [ For RISCOS Ltd., ] VA5000 is unlikely to be a problem itself, but
> > > > the development of a JIT VARiscPC would be.
> > >
> > > You should see the latest builds of Red Squirrel - my 800 MHz PC (not
> > > fast these days!) runs WebsterXL quicker than my StrongARM
> > > Risc PC! :-)
> >
> > Judging by the VA performance on my 1 GHz PC, I doubt that. And using
> > the old RedSquirrel version with any decent screen resolution slows
> > it down to a crawl. I am sure that the performance is now much better,
> > but I don't believe in overall performance gains of factor 100.
>
> It depends on your application. HostFS appears significantly faster than
> ADFS on a RiscPC so file based apps can be much faster.
Well, I already use HostFS with RedSquirrel V0.4.x, have you misunderstood
my point of doubting the factor 100 speedup compared to the older
RedSquirrel or are you telling me that HostFS gets much faster with the
new version?
And anyway, when can I test that new version ;-)
> The memory bandwidth is faster than on a RiscPC but slower than the cache
> so again this will be affected by the type of App you are running.
And the advantages of PC memory bandwidth are hardly worth a factor 100,
are they?
> RedSquirrel 0.5 and VirtualA5000 don't bother blitting video data when it
> isn't necessary so high res modes have much less effect on the speed than
> they used to. This doesn't have too much of an effect in VA as the video
> bandwidth is quite low but in RiscPC mode I get 70fps at 1280x1024, 256
> colours with no noticeable change in speed. Even 32k/16m colours are OK if
> you're not doing too much on screen.
Well, my definition of "decent screen resolution" has changed since I
bought ViewFinder - how about 1600x1200@16m colours ;-)
However, nice to see that the new versions obviously are less
sensitive to high bandwidth modes.
Robert Hartley
you can buy VPC with DOS for 79ukp if youm already have an OS but they
dont advertise that too much since they make a lot of dosh from windows
sales. :-)
cheers
bob
Steffen Huber
> > distribute any version of RISC OS within our target market.
Please take care with your quoting. The paragraph you quoted above was
posted to Usenet by me, but it was not written by me, but cited from
another source.
> Any version at all?
>
> Do they have the say on RISC OS 2?
>
> Does this affect Castle (IIRC) who have a previous licence for the 3.7
> (again, IIRC) fitted in their machine?
Exactly those questions have been answered again and again in this
thread and other VA related threads. Google is your friend.
Graeme Barnes
> my point of doubting the factor 100 speedup compared to the older
> RedSquirrel or are you telling me that HostFS gets much faster with the
> new version?
I doubt very much whether VA is 100x faster than the older versions of RS.
On my 700Mhz laptop it has an effective speed of around 70Mips and it will
differ from machine to machine. But as we all know mips are not a good
indication of machine speed. Only objective tests of real world apps are a
good test. One very basic test we've run is rendering the Artworks apple.
E.g. on RedSquirrel JIT at 800x600x16m colours it renders in 11 seconds on
said laptop. Compare that to your Risc PC.
> And anyway, when can I test that new version ;-)
You can test RS 0.5 now at www.red-squirrel.org. You can't however test
the JIT version :-)
> > The memory bandwidth is faster than on a RiscPC but slower than the
cache
> > so again this will be affected by the type of App you are running.
>
> And the advantages of PC memory bandwidth are hardly worth a factor 100,
> are they?
No
> > RedSquirrel 0.5 and VirtualA5000 don't bother blitting video data when
it
> > isn't necessary so high res modes have much less effect on the speed
than
> > they used to. This doesn't have too much of an effect in VA as the video
> > bandwidth is quite low but in RiscPC mode I get 70fps at 1280x1024, 256
> > colours with no noticeable change in speed. Even 32k/16m colours are OK
if
> > you're not doing too much on screen.
>
> Well, my definition of "decent screen resolution" has changed since I
> bought ViewFinder - how about 1600x1200@16m colours ;-)
RedSquirrel is usable at that resolution although dragging large windows
around can be a tad slow. That's VIDC emulation for you.
Graeme
Liam Gretton
> On 20 Feb 2002, in message
> <Pine.GSO.4.44L0.02022...@happy.star.le.ac.uk>, Liam
> Gretton <l...@star.le.ac.uk> wrote:
> >
> > But the burning question that would stop a lot of speculation is do they
> > actually have any rights to version of RO other than v4?
> >
> They say they do, as you know very well. You have an answer to your
> "burning question", which you are choosing to ignore.
No, I don't know and I wouldn't bother taking part in the debate about it
if I did. Obviously you don't know me, but I can assure you I don't spend
my time perpetuating pointless arguments for the sake of it.
> Why do you doubt them? What is the utility of speculating differently?
Their press releases specifically say they have a license from Pace to
develop and sell *RO4*. Yet their rhetoric suggests otherwise. That's why
I'm interested in which versions they actually have any rights over.
In fact I've been mailed by someone who ought to know that their rights
only include RO4. In which case it seems their legal argument about VA's
use of RO3.1 is baseless.
Douglas McKenzie
Paul Vigay <pa...@vigay.spamtrap.com> wrote in
news:4b0c41b...@vigay.spamtrap.com:
> In article <4b0bd3ac0...@t-online.de>,
> Matthias Seifert <M.Se...@t-online.de> wrote:
>
>> The problem with VirtualRPC on the other hand seems to be that RISCOS
>> Ltd already made clear that they aren't interested (for whatever
>> reason, including that they simply may not be allowed to do so) to
>> provide RISC OS for use with an emulator, and thus it may turn out to
>> be quite a problem to get a version of RISC OS to legally include with
>> VirtualRPC.
>
> They could always do what VirtualPC do on the Apple Mac - and that's
> include a full copy of the OS with the emulator, and add the relevant
> charge to the top.
>
> Ie. VirtualPC for the Mac includes a copy of Windows and costs the
> relevant amount. AFAIK you cannot purchase VirtualPC without an OS, so
> Microsoft are always going to get a commission for a copy of Windows.
>
You can.
The guy sitting next to me bought his copy just before Christmas.
> Surely, Red Squirrel could just bundle a copy of RISC OS 4 and add 120
> quid
> or whatever to the price?
>
Doug
The Doctor
"Graeme Barnes" <gra...@redsquirrel.no.spam.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> > "Steffen Huber" <steffe...@gmx.de> wrote in message
> > news:3C74CA5D...@gmx.de...
> > Well, I already use HostFS with RedSquirrel V0.4.x, have you misunderstood
> > my point of doubting the factor 100 speedup compared to the older
> > RedSquirrel or are you telling me that HostFS gets much faster with the
> > new version?
>
> I doubt very much whether VA is 100x faster than the older versions of RS.
> On my 700Mhz laptop it has an effective speed of around 70Mips and it will
> differ from machine to machine. But as we all know mips are not a good
> indication of machine speed. Only objective tests of real world apps are a
> good test. One very basic test we've run is rendering the Artworks apple.
> E.g. on RedSquirrel JIT at 800x600x16m colours it renders in 11 seconds on
> said laptop. Compare that to your Risc PC.
>
4.12 seconds (Kinetic233 2mb VRAM)
Very impressive nonetheless
Fortunately my AMD XP2000 processorhas arrived ;-)
Unfortunately everything else is all happening at once now, so it's
unlikely I'll get round to testing things properly until after the South
West Show (2nd March)
> > And anyway, when can I test that new version ;-)
>
> You can test RS 0.5 now at www.red-squirrel.org. You can't however test
> the JIT version :-)
>
JIT? Who needs it? Not I!
Cheers!
--
Graham
RiscPC Kinetic running RISC OS 4.04
The RISC OS Hardware guide
http://www.themaincontrolroom.freeserve.co.uk/hardware
My site - http://www.themaincontrolroom.freeserve.co.uk
Tony van der Hoff
> On Thu, 21 Feb 2002, Tony van der Hoff wrote:
>
> > On 20 Feb 2002, in message
> > <Pine.GSO.4.44L0.02022...@happy.star.le.ac.uk>, Liam
> > Gretton <l...@star.le.ac.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > > But the burning question that would stop a lot of speculation is do
> > > they actually have any rights to version of RO other than v4?
> > >
> > They say they do, as you know very well. You have an answer to your
> > "burning question", which you are choosing to ignore.
>
> No, I don't know and I wouldn't bother taking part in the debate about it
> if I did. Obviously you don't know me, but I can assure you I don't spend
> my time perpetuating pointless arguments for the sake of it.
>
> > Why do you doubt them? What is the utility of speculating differently?
>
> Their press releases specifically say they have a license from Pace to
> develop and sell *RO4*. Yet their rhetoric suggests otherwise. That's why
> I'm interested in which versions they actually have any rights over.
>
> In fact I've been mailed by someone who ought to know that their rights
> only include RO4. In which case it seems their legal argument about VA's
> use of RO3.1 is baseless.
>
The following has been quoted before in this thread, so it was reasonable for
me to assume you'd read it. I further imagined that you'd made an earlier
reference to this very article, describing it as FUD. However, since I'm
evidently mistaken, this was posted by Paul Middleton on 8th February 2002 in
the last Foundation newsletter:
-----------------------------------------------
<quote>
RISC OS emulators
-----------------
After my section in the last Newsletter
there has been even more discussion about the status of Acorn Emulators and
RISC OS.
In March 1999 RISCOS Ltd entered into a Licence Agreement with
Element 14 Ltd for the future development and marketing of
RISC OS within the desktop market.
That Agreement means that no other company can have a licence to
distribute any version of RISC OS within our target market.
Use of RISC OS on a desktop or portable PC falls into our
target market.
RISCOS Ltd does not Licence earlier versions of RISC OS to
anyone as we do not have the source code to be able to support
those versions.
The only exception to the usage of earlier versions of RISC OS
by third parties is Castle Technology who already had a
manufacturing agreement to use RISC OS 3.7 prior to our
Agreement with Element 14. Castle do not however have source
code access to RISC OS 3.7.
I hope the above information will put an end to the discussion
as to who can legally distribute RISC OS. The answer is that
for the desktop market, all licensing must be done by RISCOS Ltd.
</quote>
-----------------------------------------------
There was more, but the above addresses (and, I believe, extinguishes) your
burning question.
I have no reason to doubt Paul's conviction, and equally, as I have
repeatedly emphasised, I also have no reason to doubt Aaron's similar belief.
There are simply insufficient data available to draw any conclusions. It does
not seem unreasonable to expect everyone here to be equally open-minded under
the circumstances.
Their press releases related to the *development* of RO 4; indeed it would
rather silly to develop any other version. Clearly, development was in those
days the burning issue; nobody could have cared less about distribution of
earlier versions. It therefore didn't make useful material for a press
release. Nobody should be drawing any conclusions from what a press release
*doesn't* say; that's really scraping the barrel.
You say your correspondent ought to know, but clearly his/her understanding
does not match that of Paul Middleton, who certainly ought to know. I have
further private email from him re-asserting his belief. Could it be that your
correspondent is also mistaken?
In the absence of sight of the actual agreements, and a sharp legal mind to
interpret them, we can speculate 'till the cows come home as to where the
misunderstanding lies, but this speculation is silly and pointless; nothing
will be resolved until the three principal parties resolve it amongst
themselves. We are certainly not helping them do so here.
Is this a record thread in csaa/csam? In any case, it really ought to be put
to bed; the issues are unresolvable here.
Richard Walker
Paul Vigay <pa...@vigay.spamtrap.com> wrote:
> In article <4b0bd3ac0...@t-online.de>,
> Matthias Seifert <M.Se...@t-online.de> wrote:
>
> > The problem with VirtualRPC on the other hand seems to be that RISCOS
> > Ltd already made clear that they aren't interested (for whatever reason,
> > including that they simply may not be allowed to do so) to provide RISC
> > OS for use with an emulator, and thus it may turn out to be quite a
> > problem to get a version of RISC OS to legally include with VirtualRPC.
>
> They could always do what VirtualPC do on the Apple Mac - and that's
> include a full copy of the OS with the emulator, and add the relevant
> charge to the top.
No, they can't. Paul Middleton can/will not allow Virtual Acorn to do this.
It's been discussed *many* times, and is the reason why Virtual Acorn are
selling 'Virtual A5000' and not 'Virtual A7000/RPC'.
In my opinion, once Red Squirrel is a little more mature, Virtual Acorn
should just release 'Virtual Risc PC', with no OS, and include software to
rip the ROM images from an existing Risc PC.
--
Richard.
"Someday when I'm lonely. Wishing you weren't so far away."
Richard Walker
Liam Gretton <l...@star.le.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Feb 2002, Richard Walker wrote:
>
> > You should see the latest builds of Red Squirrel - my 800 MHz PC (not
> > fast these days!) runs WebsterXL quicker than my StrongARM Risc PC! :-)
>
> Bong! The death knell of native RISC OS hardware tolls...
Actually, it's a bit of a cheat.
I've noticed that part of the reason for WebsterXL being so damn slow is
that each image it downloads is saved to disc, passed to a single-tasking
command-line 'x2spr' conversion program, then the resulting sprite file is
loaded and rendered. :-o With Red Squirrel, I can use HostFS, which gives
RISC OS disc access at native speeds... Oh look, a Risc PC with UDMA/66!
:-) Oh, and HostFS is not currently optimal.
On the more useful side, I've also had Red Squirrel happily playing Replay
movies (multi-tasking), rendering HTML (with Oregano) and still having power
left over for typing and playing with the Filer etc.
--
Richard.
"Love, love me do. You know I love you. I'll always be true."
Colin Ferris
<URL:mailto:gra...@redsquirrel.no.spam.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> > Well, my definition of "decent screen resolution" has changed since I
> > bought ViewFinder - how about 1600x1200@16m colours ;-)
>
> RedSquirrel is usable at that resolution although dragging large windows
> around can be a tad slow. That's VIDC emulation for you.
>
> Graeme
>
>
It's a great pity that the knowledge gained by JK on 'Viewfinder' and
Graeme on 'Red Squirrel', couldn't be put to use, getting RO4 running on
the StrongArm 'Cats' board.
--
Colin Ferris Cornwall UK
Matthias Seifert
[...]
> > Any version at all?
> >
> > Do they have the say on RISC OS 2?
> >
> > Does this affect Castle (IIRC) who have a previous licence for the 3.7
> > (again, IIRC) fitted in their machine?
> Exactly those questions have been answered again and again in this
> thread and other VA related threads.
I don't think that they have been answered. There were just a lot of
posters who expressed their personal interpretions of the few bits about
the licence which are publicly available.
And I'm sure this could go on forever. ;-)
Liam Gretton
> The following has been quoted before in this thread, so it was reasonable for
> me to assume you'd read it. I further imagined that you'd made an earlier
> reference to this very article, describing it as FUD. However, since I'm
> evidently mistaken, this was posted by Paul Middleton on 8th February 2002 in
> the last Foundation newsletter:
No need for the patronising tone, Tony. I'm not making any personal
attacks against you, we're just enjoying a debate on usenet, ok?
> Their press releases related to the *development* of RO 4; indeed it would
> rather silly to develop any other version. Clearly, development was in those
> days the burning issue; nobody could have cared less about distribution of
> earlier versions. It therefore didn't make useful material for a press
> release. Nobody should be drawing any conclusions from what a press release
> *doesn't* say; that's really scraping the barrel.
Perhaps if they had, there wouldn't be all this confusion now, would
there? But their original press release regarding the licensing of RO4
reads to me that they have no claim over RO3. Otherwise why not just say
the had a license to develop RO rather than RO4 specifically? There wasn't
a RO4 at the time anyway, I believe RO3.8 was what they got their hands on
to develop into RO4.
> You say your correspondent ought to know, but clearly his/her understanding
> does not match that of Paul Middleton, who certainly ought to know. I have
> further private email from him re-asserting his belief. Could it be that your
> correspondent is also mistaken?
Of course, I never said it was gospel. It'd help if he piped up now
actually... ;-)
> In the absence of sight of the actual agreements, and a sharp legal mind to
> interpret them, we can speculate 'till the cows come home as to where the
> misunderstanding lies, but this speculation is silly and pointless;
So what? It's usenet. Endless speculation's half the fun ;-)
Terry Blunt
Matthias Seifert <M.Se...@t-online.de> wrote:
> I don't think that they have been answered. There were just a lot of
> posters who expressed their personal interpretions of the few bits about
> the licence which are publicly available.
>
> And I'm sure this could go on forever. ;-)
Sadly, I'm just as sure it *will* <sigh>
--
Terry Blunt <te...@langri.demon.co.uk>
... told today, of work to do yesterday, with materials supplied tomorrow.
ROS402dn
Richard Walker <runny...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
Or, make a PCI card with ROM sockets so that the OS is downloaded from
a valid and legally obtained version of OS4 each time RS/VA is loaded.
If you remove the possibility of using ROM image files, and only allow
it to work using real ROMs, then I don't see the problem.