Pandora

9 views
Skip to first unread message

Andrew

unread,
Feb 22, 2009, 6:45:10 AM2/22/09
to
Anybody planning to get a Pandora should RO5 be ported for it? Am I
right in thinking the price is going to be <£200 for Pandora?

Are ROOL helping with this? How about Castle or major dealers - do
they see the potential in supporting this project?

Andrew
--

Thomas Milius

unread,
Feb 22, 2009, 8:14:10 AM2/22/09
to
In message <6f5f9431...@no.reply>
Andrew <nu...@email.invalid> wrote:

Look on ROOL pages inside the forum. The pandora port started a while
ago. There are proceedings but also still unsolved problems.

Sone time ago a competent member of the RISC OS community said that RISC OS
in its actual shape (independently of the version) will have some problems
with the ARM-Cortex architecture. I renember that he mentioned 2 problems.
One is floating point handling and it is likely that it could be solved in
the same way as 32 Bit programs and traditionally there are only a very RISC
OS programs making usage of floating point instructions and are written in
assembler. So this will not be the problem and it has been identified already
during the pandora port. The other point is still a mystery to me for I don't
know what might change in Cortex architecture additionally.

In my opinion the pandora project has a fair chance to be successful in case
that the ARM-Cortex adaptation will be solved.

Regards

Thomas Milius

David Holden

unread,
Feb 22, 2009, 8:17:14 AM2/22/09
to

No-one legally can. Since ROOL rejected ROL's offer of a licence there's no
real future in it.

--
David Holden - APDL - <http://www.apdl.co.uk>

Paul Stewart

unread,
Feb 22, 2009, 10:21:18 AM2/22/09
to
In message <70d1iq...@mid.individual.net>
"David Holden" <Spa...@apdl.co.uk> wrote:


> On 22-Feb-2009, Andrew <nu...@email.invalid> wrote:

>> Anybody planning to get a Pandora should RO5 be ported for it? Am I
>> right in thinking the price is going to be <£200 for Pandora?
>>
>> Are ROOL helping with this? How about Castle or major dealers - do
>> they see the potential in supporting this project?

> No-one legally can. Since ROOL rejected ROL's offer of a licence there's no
> real future in it.

I'm sure that won't stop some enterprising developers of doing such a
thing for pleasure!

Regards
--
Paul Stewart - Far Bletchley, Milton Keynes, England.
(msn:pauls...@phawfaux.co.uk)

RISC OS Southwest show. Saturday February 21st. Be there and be
seen!
http://www.riscos.com/roadshows/SWShow2009/SWShow2009.htm

David Holden

unread,
Feb 22, 2009, 11:34:14 AM2/22/09
to

On 22-Feb-2009, Paul Stewart <pauls...@phawfaux.co.uk> wrote:

> In message <70d1iq...@mid.individual.net>
> "David Holden" <Spa...@apdl.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> > On 22-Feb-2009, Andrew <nu...@email.invalid> wrote:
>
> >> Anybody planning to get a Pandora should RO5 be ported for it? Am I
> >> right in thinking the price is going to be <£200 for Pandora?
> >>
> >> Are ROOL helping with this? How about Castle or major dealers - do
> >> they see the potential in supporting this project?
>
> > No-one legally can. Since ROOL rejected ROL's offer of a licence there's
> > no
> > real future in it.
>
> I'm sure that won't stop some enterprising developers of doing such a
> thing for pleasure!

Of course not, but the OP was asking why *dealers* weren't supporting such a
project and that was the question I was answering.

Rob Kendrick

unread,
Feb 22, 2009, 1:15:25 PM2/22/09
to
On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 13:17:14 GMT
"David Holden" <Spa...@apdl.co.uk> wrote:

>
> On 22-Feb-2009, Andrew <nu...@email.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Anybody planning to get a Pandora should RO5 be ported for it? Am I
> > right in thinking the price is going to be <£200 for Pandora?
> >
> > Are ROOL helping with this? How about Castle or major dealers - do
> > they see the potential in supporting this project?
>
> No-one legally can. Since ROOL rejected ROL's offer of a licence
> there's no real future in it.

ROOL have a licence to say they're allowed to distribute it. They're
legally covered, even if Castle were wrong to give them that licence.
(ie, it's not their fault.).

I suggest you take it up with Castle.

B.

Thomas Milius

unread,
Feb 22, 2009, 1:38:01 PM2/22/09
to
In message <70d1iq...@mid.individual.net>
"David Holden" <Spa...@apdl.co.uk> wrote:

>
> On 22-Feb-2009, Andrew <nu...@email.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Anybody planning to get a Pandora should RO5 be ported for it? Am I
> > right in thinking the price is going to be <£200 for Pandora?
> >
> > Are ROOL helping with this? How about Castle or major dealers - do
> > they see the potential in supporting this project?
>
> No-one legally can. Since ROOL rejected ROL's offer of a licence there's no
> real future in it.
>

Time will show which side has the rights on RISC OS. Perhaps both. I don't
think that in case that ROOL could offer a Pandora port and ROL would block
it any user of RISC OS wants to work together with ROL anymore. RISC OS users
are interested in new working hardware and as far as I can see ROOLs way
seems one to get it, perhaps the only one.

Regards

Thomas Milius


glavallin

unread,
Feb 22, 2009, 1:47:43 PM2/22/09
to
In message <70d1iq...@mid.individual.net>
"David Holden" <Spa...@apdl.co.uk> wrote:

>
> On 22-Feb-2009, Andrew <nu...@email.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Anybody planning to get a Pandora should RO5 be ported for it? Am I
> > right in thinking the price is going to be <£200 for Pandora?
> >
> > Are ROOL helping with this? How about Castle or major dealers - do
> > they see the potential in supporting this project?
>
> No-one legally can. Since ROOL rejected ROL's offer of a licence there's no
> real future in it.
>

Ah .... Big Bad Wolf is back......
--

Geoff

Peter Naulls

unread,
Feb 23, 2009, 1:51:49 PM2/23/09
to

Unfortunately, to date, all we have from ROL et al is grandstanding.
The Pandora stuff et al is perhaps not very interesting (to myself),
but rather my interest here is openness, and any kind of clarification.

Since ROL clearly do not own all parts of what could be reasonably
defined to be "RISC OS" (and in the broadest possible sense, since that
includes many 3rd party components which they could not possibly
claim copyright), and giving ROL the benefit of the doubt (since
equally, there's many things they can validly claim rights to),
I'd like to know _exactly_ which parts of RISC OS they think they
hold copyright over. I know that's a big question, but to make
it easier, and more relevant, I'd certainly settle for which
components a likely Pandora port contained which they claim
ownership over.

If you've been paying attention to the previous thread on this,
you'll know where I'm going. For ROL, this is very much a
SCO-like dilemma (or perhaps a "trilemma"). If they say nothing
specific, then we can only assume it's just noise.

On the other hand, if they do claim ownership of a specific
component, then it can go one of two ways: either their
claim can be debunked beyond reasonable doubt via CVS logs
(or whatever), or if they do have a reasonable claim to
the component, then it can be replaced with a version
which has no such claims over it.

Indeed, this is hardly without precedent - note Graham
Shaw's SCL, various bits by Justin Fletcher, other stuff
that was missing from the initial RISC OS 5, etc, and
certainly similar debacles with the Linux kernel.

And finally, let's leave ROOL out of it. The issue is
between Castle and ROL. ROOL are merely providers of
source which Castle claim ownership of.

Naturally, IANAL, but have spend much time with
software licenses and related issues.

Jess

unread,
Feb 23, 2009, 3:03:43 PM2/23/09
to
In message <70d1iq...@mid.individual.net>
"David Holden" <Spa...@apdl.co.uk> wrote:
> On 22-Feb-2009, Andrew <nu...@email.invalid> wrote:

>> Anybody planning to get a Pandora should RO5 be ported for it? Am I
>> right in thinking the price is going to be <£200 for Pandora?

Yes.

>> Are ROOL helping with this? How about Castle or major dealers - do
>> they see the potential in supporting this project?
>
> No-one legally can. Since ROOL rejected ROL's offer of a licence there's no
> real future in it.

In my opinion, if ROOL had signed a license that would have been
taking ROL's side against Castle, which would have stopped them being
neutral.

ROL should have just given them the license, rather than requiring it
to be accepted.


--
Jess Iyonix
Hotmail is my spam trap use this for reply:
mailto:nos...@jess.itworkshop-nexus.net or
http://jess.itworkshop-nexus.net

Tim Powys-Lybbe

unread,
Feb 23, 2009, 6:31:47 PM2/23/09
to
In message of 23 Feb, Jess <phant...@hotmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

> In my opinion, if ROOL had signed a license that would have been
> taking ROL's side against Castle, which would have stopped them
> being neutral.
>
> ROL should have just given them the license, rather than requiring
> it to be accepted.

Much of my present work involves legal documents, interpreting them,
getting lawyers to write them and to clarify what they or others have
written in the past.

It is extremely difficult for a layman to guess what would be the
result in a court of law. In one difficult matter recently, I had to
get a barrister's opinion as the lawyers knew they were out of their
depth. The barrister came up with a remarkable opinion which
completely trounced all previous speculations. The reason was that
the barrister knew the law.

If ROL think they have a case, they should get a lawyer's formal
opinion. (They should pay the lawyer too.) They should then take
that up with Castle and ask for a response.

Castle do not have to do anything.

The next step is for ROL to get a judge to issue an injunction to
forbid Castle from continuing with their practices. At this stage
Castle might, or might not, seek to defend what they assume to be
their property. Castle will have to pay money on lawyers. If it goes
to court, there are even more costs. The winner may even get their
costs paid by the losers, assuming that the losers have any finds in
the bank.

So far I do not think ROL have the balls or the finance to go to
normal legal processes. All we have heard so far is hot air and no
action.

I would be grateful if the hot air would cease. If they can't act,
ROL should shut up: the whinings of their supporters is beginning to
grate. Or if ROL has no proposal to act, the whining supporters are,
as Chairman Mao put it, paper tigers, without teeth or claws.

--
Tim Powys-Lybbe                                          t...@powys.org
             For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/

Alex' A. Interrants

unread,
Feb 24, 2009, 1:32:36 AM2/24/09
to
In der Nachricht <6f5f9431...@no.reply>
Andrew <nu...@email.invalid> hat geschrieben:

RISC OS is great for some kind of work whereas the Pandora isn't
designed for RISC OS. It's just another 'split' of the OS. I don't
think RISC OS can be very usable on this machine.

Alex'

--
Sent from a Kinetic Risc PC, RISC OS 4.02
Venusberg, European Alps (693 m above sea level)
http://home.chiemgau-net.de/ausserstorfer/

Jess

unread,
Feb 24, 2009, 5:38:21 AM2/24/09
to
In message <f2e6583...@southfarm.plus.com>
Tim Powys-Lybbe <t...@powys.org> wrote:

[snip]

> The next step is for ROL to get a judge to issue an injunction to
> forbid Castle from continuing with their practices. At this stage
> Castle might, or might not, seek to defend what they assume to be
> their property. Castle will have to pay money on lawyers. If it goes
> to court, there are even more costs. The winner may even get their
> costs paid by the losers, assuming that the losers have any finds in
> the bank.

There are flaws in this:

1. ROL support the ROOL initiative, so don't want to stop it.
2. Any serious legal action would kill the whole thing.
(This was probably why they didn't fight over the Iyonix.)

As far as I can see, the only thing ROL are seriously interested in is
revenues from any commercial use.

> So far I do not think ROL have the balls or the finance to go to
> normal legal processes. All we have heard so far is hot air and no
> action.
>
> I would be grateful if the hot air would cease. If they can't act,
> ROL should shut up: the whinings of their supporters is beginning to
> grate. Or if ROL has no proposal to act, the whining supporters are,
> as Chairman Mao put it, paper tigers, without teeth or claws.

What is needed is a means of guaranteeing that the free use side of
the ROOL initiative is safe, whoever it turns out owns the rights to
sell it on the desktop.

So far there have been several statements of support for the project
from ROL, what I don't know is whether these are enough to be a legal
protection, if for example another company bought ROL and didn't want
an open RISC OS for desktops.

--
Jess Iyonix
Hotmail is my spam trap.

Rob Kendrick

unread,
Feb 24, 2009, 5:57:46 AM2/24/09
to
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 10:38:21 GMT
Jess <phant...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> There are flaws in this:
>
> 1. ROL support the ROOL initiative, so don't want to stop it.

What I never understood is how they like the initiative, and yet are so
badly behaved about it at the same time. And if they support it, why
are they hindering it rather than helping?

> 2. Any serious legal action would kill the whole thing.
> (This was probably why they didn't fight over the Iyonix.)

The sandbox is too small for any arguments like that. The only real
option is for them to both continue as they are, and ignore what each
other says. At least that way they might make some pennies.

> As far as I can see, the only thing ROL are seriously interested in
> is revenues from any commercial use.

Of course, what classes as commercial use?

> So far there have been several statements of support for the project
> from ROL, what I don't know is whether these are enough to be a legal
> protection, if for example another company bought ROL and didn't want
> an open RISC OS for desktops.

I think another body buying ROL is staggeringly unlikely; I suspect
strongly that ROL shareholders wouldn't accept the company's value as
payment.

Additionally, there is some legal trouble over how long they've let it
go and not pursue them legally.

B.

george

unread,
Feb 24, 2009, 5:03:45 AM2/24/09
to
In message <c96d7f325...@chiemgau-net.de>

"Alex' A. Interrants" <bavari...@usenet.cnntp.org> wrote:

> In der Nachricht <6f5f9431...@no.reply>
> Andrew <nu...@email.invalid> hat geschrieben:
>

[snip]


>
> RISC OS is great for some kind of work whereas the Pandora isn't
> designed for RISC OS. It's just another 'split' of the OS. I don't
> think RISC OS can be very usable on this machine.
>
> Alex'
>

"The ARM CortexTM-A8 processor is... the highest performance, most
power-efficient processor available from ARM." (Quote from ARM Ltd's
web site). Presumably getting RISC OS to work on this is worth doing,
irrespective of the shortcomings of the Pandora?

George


--

Rob Kendrick

unread,
Feb 24, 2009, 6:08:31 AM2/24/09
to
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 11:03:45 +0100
george <george.g...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:

> "The ARM CortexTM-A8 processor is... the highest performance, most
> power-efficient processor available from ARM." (Quote from ARM Ltd's
> web site). Presumably getting RISC OS to work on this is worth doing,
> irrespective of the shortcomings of the Pandora?

Although taking advantage of most of the ways it improves performance
will require a recompilation of software at the very least.

(ie, it improves performance by changing and adding to the instruction
set, as well as some other improvements.)

B.

Chris Hughes

unread,
Feb 24, 2009, 6:24:46 AM2/24/09
to
In message <f2e6583...@southfarm.plus.com>
Tim Powys-Lybbe <t...@powys.org> wrote:

> In message of 23 Feb, Jess <phant...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> <snip>

>> In my opinion, if ROOL had signed a license that would have been
>> taking ROL's side against Castle, which would have stopped them
>> being neutral.

No it would not have done at all, it would have ensured regardless of
which side is correct they were protected. Since they could claim they
have a licence from both parties.

>>
>> ROL should have just given them the license, rather than requiring
>> it to be accepted.

That is basically what they did! But who cares about facts.

> Much of my present work involves legal documents, interpreting them,
> getting lawyers to write them and to clarify what they or others have
> written in the past.

> It is extremely difficult for a layman to guess what would be the
> result in a court of law. In one difficult matter recently, I had to
> get a barrister's opinion as the lawyers knew they were out of their
> depth. The barrister came up with a remarkable opinion which
> completely trounced all previous speculations. The reason was that
> the barrister knew the law.

Precisely. They are an a lot of "experts" in these groups who think
they know who owns what, basing much of it on press releases and
heresy, nudge nudge wink wink, etc.. The *only* people who actually
know are the people with the "Full" licences, etc., and a number of
the shareholders. The details of which are generally under a form of
NDA - this is quite normal for commercial reasons. So cannot be
released.

I have not personally seen the paper work so do not know who is right
or wrong.

> If ROL think they have a case, they should get a lawyer's formal
> opinion. (They should pay the lawyer too.) They should then take
> that up with Castle and ask for a response.

They have already done this if I remember rightly some time ago

> Castle do not have to do anything.

Except respond of course and then check with their legal team.

> The next step is for ROL to get a judge to issue an injunction to
> forbid Castle from continuing with their practices. At this stage
> Castle might, or might not, seek to defend what they assume to be
> their property. Castle will have to pay money on lawyers. If it goes
> to court, there are even more costs. The winner may even get their
> costs paid by the losers, assuming that the losers have any finds in
> the bank.

This would cost a LOT of money for which neither party has the
finances to afford it. You would kill RISC OS completely.

In any case if Castle were so sure of there case a few years ago
against RISCOS Ltd why have they not pursued it further.

> So far I do not think ROL have the balls or the finance to go to
> normal legal processes. All we have heard so far is hot air and no
> action.

The same on both sides both Castle and RISCOS Ltd. There are two sides
to every story. Neither can afford the expense etc.

> I would be grateful if the hot air would cease. If they can't act,
> ROL should shut up: the whinings of their supporters is beginning to
> grate. Or if ROL has no proposal to act, the whining supporters are,
> as Chairman Mao put it, paper tigers, without teeth or claws.

The whinings of Castle lovers also grate - how's that for balance.

Castle have not acted on their claims either.

Now as to the Pandora - not interested. a) because how will it be
supported. b) what happens when a slight change occurs to the chips
etc making RISC OS not work, who is going to continously maintain the
code, provide ongoing support and sort software issues out.

Please note to the last person who sent me a death threat for not
agreeing with there view on RISCOS ownership - don't bother because
the next time it will be acted upon by the police - who are aware of
the previous one.

--
Chris Hughes

Rob Kendrick

unread,
Feb 24, 2009, 6:28:44 AM2/24/09
to
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 11:24:46 GMT
Chris Hughes <ch...@mytardis.me.uk> wrote:

> >> ROL should have just given them the license, rather than requiring
> >> it to be accepted.
>
> That is basically what they did! But who cares about facts.

Although Dave Holden said they refused it just the other day. So it's
not that basic.

B.

Jess

unread,
Feb 24, 2009, 6:42:32 AM2/24/09
to
In message <20090224105...@trite.i.flarn.net.i.flarn.net>
Rob Kendrick <nn...@rjek.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 10:38:21 GMT
> Jess <phant...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> There are flaws in this:
>>
>> 1. ROL support the ROOL initiative, so don't want to stop it.
>
> What I never understood is how they like the initiative, and yet are so
> badly behaved about it at the same time.

But isn't that just their way?

> And if they support it, why are they hindering it rather than helping?

If they really just wanted to make trouble they could do a much better
job. They have be pretty contained prepared to previous situations.

>> 2. Any serious legal action would kill the whole thing.
>> (This was probably why they didn't fight over the Iyonix.)
>
> The sandbox is too small for any arguments like that. The only real
> option is for them to both continue as they are, and ignore what each
> other says. At least that way they might make some pennies.

Yes, but it would be nice for ROOL's status being secure irrespective
of any future resolution of Castle vs. ROL ownership.

>> As far as I can see, the only thing ROL are seriously interested in
>> is revenues from any commercial use.
>
> Of course, what classes as commercial use?
>
>> So far there have been several statements of support for the project
>> from ROL, what I don't know is whether these are enough to be a legal
>> protection, if for example another company bought ROL and didn't want
>> an open RISC OS for desktops.
>
> I think another body buying ROL is staggeringly unlikely; I suspect
> strongly that ROL shareholders wouldn't accept the company's value as
> payment.

But 10 years ago, wouldn't the thought that RISC OS would still be
around now and being developed have been similarly unlikely?

> Additionally, there is some legal trouble over how long they've let it
> go and not pursue them legally.

I suspect that the current grumblings are to offset any such future
possibility.

--
Jess Iyonix

Rob Kendrick

unread,
Feb 24, 2009, 6:48:08 AM2/24/09
to
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 11:42:32 GMT
Jess <phant...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > I think another body buying ROL is staggeringly unlikely; I suspect
> > strongly that ROL shareholders wouldn't accept the company's value
> > as payment.
>
> But 10 years ago, wouldn't the thought that RISC OS would still be
> around now and being developed have been similarly unlikely?

I didn't doubt it. The people involved were too fanatical to let it
just die. That doesn't mean it's worth anything; it just means there
are people willing to throw money at it. That actually makes it worth
less.

RISC OS, as an asset, I would suggest is worth no more than £5,000.
I've certainly seen software IP that's still heavily used and well
regarded go for similar.

Of course, who do you give the five grand to to buy it? It's all a
mess, such that we should just ignore it.

B.

Jess

unread,
Feb 24, 2009, 7:02:08 AM2/24/09
to
In message <5f2d9a32...@o2.co.uk>
Chris Hughes <ch...@mytardis.me.uk> wrote:

> In message <f2e6583...@southfarm.plus.com>
> Tim Powys-Lybbe <t...@powys.org> wrote:
>
>> In message of 23 Feb, Jess <phant...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> <snip>
>
>>> In my opinion, if ROOL had signed a license that would have been
>>> taking ROL's side against Castle, which would have stopped them
>>> being neutral.

> No it would not have done at all, it would have ensured regardless of
> which side is correct they were protected. Since they could claim they
> have a licence from both parties.

It would have covered them, however signing an agreement would imply
that they agreed ROL had a claim, which changes the status quo. If ROL
just sent them a license, not putting in the shredder would not have
the same implications.

[snip]

> Now as to the Pandora - not interested. a) because how will it be
> supported. b) what happens when a slight change occurs to the chips
> etc making RISC OS not work, who is going to continously maintain the
> code, provide ongoing support and sort software issues out.

But that would not affect existing systems, just future ones.

David Holden

unread,
Feb 24, 2009, 7:34:29 AM2/24/09
to

On 24-Feb-2009, Jess <phant...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> It would have covered them, however signing an agreement would imply
> that they agreed ROL had a claim, which changes the status quo. If ROL
> just sent them a license, not putting in the shredder would not have
> the same implications.

No, that's irrelevant. If ROL just 'give' ROOL permission then thay have no
'rights' and it can be revoked at any time. If ROL were to cease trading
then whoever acquired their assets (eg. the bank) would almost certainly
withdraw permission and possibly even demand payment from ROOL.

If ROOL pay ROL a 'consideration' for a licence, even a token 1 GBP, then it
would survive ROL and it would be ROOL that would be in a position to seek
damages if the new owner of ROL's assets had tried to stop them doing what
they're doing.

Still, too late now. The opportunity has been lost :-(

Rob Kendrick

unread,
Feb 24, 2009, 7:39:15 AM2/24/09
to
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 12:34:29 GMT
"David Holden" <Spa...@apdl.co.uk> wrote:

>
> On 24-Feb-2009, Jess <phant...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > It would have covered them, however signing an agreement would imply
> > that they agreed ROL had a claim, which changes the status quo. If
> > ROL just sent them a license, not putting in the shredder would not
> > have the same implications.
>
> No, that's irrelevant. If ROL just 'give' ROOL permission then thay
> have no 'rights' and it can be revoked at any time. If ROL were to
> cease trading then whoever acquired their assets (eg. the bank) would
> almost certainly withdraw permission and possibly even demand payment
> from ROOL.

Perhaps that would settle it for once and for all. Why not cease
trading and answer all the questions? :)

B.

Chris Hughes

unread,
Feb 24, 2009, 7:16:06 AM2/24/09
to
In message <46999d3...@itworkshop.invalid>
Jess <phant...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> In message <5f2d9a32...@o2.co.uk>
> Chris Hughes <ch...@mytardis.me.uk> wrote:

>> In message <f2e6583...@southfarm.plus.com>
>> Tim Powys-Lybbe <t...@powys.org> wrote:
>>
>>> In message of 23 Feb, Jess <phant...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> <snip>
>>
>>>> In my opinion, if ROOL had signed a license that would have been
>>>> taking ROL's side against Castle, which would have stopped them
>>>> being neutral.

>> No it would not have done at all, it would have ensured regardless of
>> which side is correct they were protected. Since they could claim they
>> have a licence from both parties.

> It would have covered them, however signing an agreement would imply
> that they agreed ROL had a claim, which changes the status quo. If ROL
> just sent them a license, not putting in the shredder would not have
> the same implications.

Therein lies part of the problem. Both parties have to agreed to the
licence at the end of the day. ROOL chose to ignore/not accept the one
offered by ROL, that was their choice. The only problem comes if in
the future, Castle is found to have given ROOL an invalid licence as
they have chosen not to carry out due diligence, in checking it
validity. i.e. not taking Castle/ROL word for it they have a right to
issue the said licence.

> [snip]

>> Now as to the Pandora - not interested. a) because how will it be
>> supported. b) what happens when a slight change occurs to the chips
>> etc making RISC OS not work, who is going to continously maintain the
>> code, provide ongoing support and sort software issues out.

> But that would not affect existing systems, just future ones.

No, if the the supplier of the Pandora decided to change a componet on
board the motherboard which was say cheaper, but RISC OS knew nothing
about or worked differently. It would pose a problem for RISC OS
potentially. Its happens all the time. Other OS may not need any
changes becuase of the way they have been written in first place.

--
Chris Hughes

Rob Kendrick

unread,
Feb 24, 2009, 8:35:14 AM2/24/09
to
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 12:16:06 GMT
Chris Hughes <ch...@mytardis.me.uk> wrote:

> No, if the the supplier of the Pandora decided to change a componet
> on board the motherboard which was say cheaper, but RISC OS knew
> nothing about or worked differently. It would pose a problem for RISC
> OS potentially. Its happens all the time. Other OS may not need any
> changes becuase of the way they have been written in first place.

More importantly, it remains to be seen if the CPU in the Pandora is
what is referred to as a "fashion item"; ie it won't be available this
time next year, so you'll end up having to port to a different SoC with
different peripherals and drivers required.

B.

JessH

unread,
Feb 24, 2009, 8:56:46 AM2/24/09
to
David Holden wrote:

> On 22-Feb-2009, Andrew <nu...@email.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Anybody planning to get a Pandora should RO5 be ported for it? Am I
> > right in thinking the price is going to be <�200 for Pandora?
> >
> > Are ROOL helping with this? How about Castle or major dealers - do
> > they see the potential in supporting this project?
>
> No-one legally can. Since ROOL rejected ROL's offer of a licence there's no
> real future in it

As I understand it, ROL claim to have sole rights for RISC OS on the
desktop, for versions of RISC OS based on 3.8 and beyond. Is that
correct?

However Pandora is somewhere between a PDA and a Netbook, and could in
no way be described as a desktop system.

Presumably as it stands ROL would have no argument if RO 5 were
licensed as a media player or a thin client system.

--
Jess

Ste (news)

unread,
Feb 24, 2009, 9:10:12 AM2/24/09
to
In article <20090224133...@trite.i.flarn.net.i.flarn.net>,

Rob Kendrick <nn...@rjek.com> wrote:
> More importantly, it remains to be seen if the CPU in the Pandora is
> what is referred to as a "fashion item"; ie it won't be available this
> time next year, so you'll end up having to port to a different SoC with
> different peripherals and drivers required.

Ben and I attended a seminar on the OMAP processors at ARM's offices with TI
running the show. We were assured by TI representatives that their OMAP
range of SoC is a long-term support product (years into the future), unlike
many of the cores that are normally used in mobile applications; those are
often created for a particular model of phone and obsolete after six months.
The OMAP range represents a range of processors which are not created for
that purpose.

Steve

--
Steve Revill @ Home
Note: All opinions expressed herein are my own.

Rob Kendrick

unread,
Feb 24, 2009, 9:15:16 AM2/24/09
to

Yes, a *range*. The range may be around, but the exact part with the
peripheral mix that RISC OS supports might not be.

S3C2440 is quite rare in that it's been around yonks, but other parts
in the S3C range have sparked out of existence almost as quickly as
they appeared.

B.

Rob Kendrick

unread,
Feb 24, 2009, 9:17:10 AM2/24/09
to
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 05:56:46 -0800 (PST)
JessH <jessha...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> As I understand it, ROL claim to have sole rights for RISC OS on the
> desktop, for versions of RISC OS based on 3.8 and beyond. Is that
> correct?
>
> However Pandora is somewhere between a PDA and a Netbook, and could in
> no way be described as a desktop system.
>
> Presumably as it stands ROL would have no argument if RO 5 were
> licensed as a media player or a thin client system.

Gah! Stop with the facts! THEY BURN.

(Yes, they've said in the past that they have no issue with CTL
licencing it for non-desktop use. Of course, we don't know what the
licence actually says; it could be referring to the Desktop module for
all we know.)

B.

Chris Hughes

unread,
Feb 24, 2009, 9:15:26 AM2/24/09
to
In message <1bba608c-014f-4272...@i38g2000yqd.googlegro
ups.com>
JessH <jessha...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> David Holden wrote:

>> On 22-Feb-2009, Andrew <nu...@email.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Anybody planning to get a Pandora should RO5 be ported for it? Am I

>>> right in thinking the price is going to be <?200 for Pandora?


>>>
>>> Are ROOL helping with this? How about Castle or major dealers - do
>>> they see the potential in supporting this project?
>>
>> No-one legally can. Since ROOL rejected ROL's offer of a licence there's no
>> real future in it

> As I understand it, ROL claim to have sole rights for RISC OS on the
> desktop, for versions of RISC OS based on 3.8 and beyond. Is that
> correct?

Jess, could I ask probably forlornly that this old topic/arguement
ends. This has been argued and done to death already at least twice
now in the past 8 weeks. Its boring.

> However Pandora is somewhere between a PDA and a Netbook, and could in
> no way be described as a desktop system.

Be careful, it can not be called a Netbook that is a Psion
trademark/copyright. and they have started to enforce it recently,
requesting politely at the moment that existing items that being
described as a "netbook", and not done so, because it breaches their
(Psion) rights.

This is how complicated these things can get. It had been overlooked
that some one else had prior right to the name, etc..

> Presumably as it stands ROL would have no argument if RO 5 were
> licensed as a media player or a thin client system.

Possibly not, but Pace might! Remember the licences Pace still have
exclusive rights to certain markets even if they don't use "RISC OS/NC
OS" any more".

Can you see just how much a mess this can become.

--
Chris Hughes

Rob Kendrick

unread,
Feb 24, 2009, 9:24:19 AM2/24/09
to
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 14:15:26 GMT
Chris Hughes <ch...@mytardis.me.uk> wrote:

> Be careful, it can not be called a Netbook that is a Psion
> trademark/copyright. and they have started to enforce it recently,
> requesting politely at the moment that existing items that being
> described as a "netbook", and not done so, because it breaches their
> (Psion) rights.

Although larger companies (Dell, HP, Asus) have essentially told them
were to go; Psion weren't actively using the trademark, which weakens
their position considerably.

Additionally, people using the term "netbook" like this weakens their
ridiculous claim, and helps the trademark become generic. (Sellotape,
Hoover, Coke, Tannoy, etc.)

Netbook netbook netbook netbook netbook! :)

B.

Michael Harding

unread,
Feb 24, 2009, 9:54:29 AM2/24/09
to
In article <69cda932...@o2.co.uk>,

Chris Hughes <ch...@mytardis.me.uk> wrote:
> In message <1bba608c-014f-4272...@i38g2000yqd.googlegro
> ups.com>
> JessH <jessha...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> > David Holden wrote:
[ . . . ]


> > As I understand it, ROL claim to have sole rights for RISC OS on
> > the desktop, for versions of RISC OS based on 3.8 and beyond. Is
> > that correct?

> Jess, could I ask probably forlornly that this old topic/arguement
> ends. This has been argued and done to death already at least twice
> now in the past 8 weeks. Its boring.

[ . . .]


> Can you see just how much a mess this can become.

At first I couldn't work out what the "Pandora" was that people kept
referring to. The penny's just dropped. Of course, it's a literary
metaphor:

"Pandora's box. .
"A present which seems valuable, but which is in reality a curse. . .
Jupiter .. gave her a box .. which when [her] bridegroom opened it,
all the evils that flesh is heir to flew forth, and have ever since
continued to afflict the world. The last thing that flew from the box
was Hope." (Webster's 'Dictionary of Phrase & Fable')

Please will someone change the title of the thread to "Who owns RISC
OS, spat v. 57" so that the rest of us can just delete it unread?

Michael Harding (a Pace shareholder)

--
Rev. Preb. M. D. Harding mdha...@ormail.co.uk

David Holden

unread,
Feb 24, 2009, 10:23:51 AM2/24/09
to

On 24-Feb-2009, JessH <jessha...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> As I understand it, ROL claim to have sole rights for RISC OS on the
> desktop, for versions of RISC OS based on 3.8 and beyond. Is that
> correct?
>

Yes

> However Pandora is somewhere between a PDA and a Netbook, and could in
> no way be described as a desktop system.
>

'Desktop' in this context doesn't mean a physical device, it means a device
with the functionality of a 'desktop computer'. For example, PDA'a are
specifically included.

> Presumably as it stands ROL would have no argument if RO 5 were
> licensed as a media player or a thin client system.

ROL have no rights over thin clients and set top boxes. Those rights are
still held exclusively by Pace, so they might have something to say about
it.

Rob Kendrick

unread,
Feb 24, 2009, 10:25:38 AM2/24/09
to
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 15:23:51 GMT
"David Holden" <Spa...@apdl.co.uk> wrote:

> > However Pandora is somewhere between a PDA and a Netbook, and could
> > in no way be described as a desktop system.
> >
> 'Desktop' in this context doesn't mean a physical device, it means a
> device with the functionality of a 'desktop computer'. For example,
> PDA'a are specifically included.

Does your agreement state that clarification? What is the
functionality of a desktop computer? Word processing? Email? Web
browsing? All of these can be done from suitably-equiped STBs. (ie,
web apps)

B.

JessH

unread,
Feb 24, 2009, 10:40:22 AM2/24/09
to
On Feb 24, 12:16 pm, Chris Hughes <ch...@mytardis.me.uk> wrote:

> No, if the the supplier of the Pandora decided to change a componet on
> board the motherboard which was say cheaper, but RISC OS knew nothing
> about or worked differently. It would pose a problem for RISC OS
> potentially. Its happens all the time. Other OS may not need any
> changes becuase of the way they have been written in first place.

I meant machines that were already running RISC OS would still work,
therefore it isn't a reason not to buy a Pandora that ran RISC OS. (It
may prevent you buying a newer one somewhere down the line.)

Jules

unread,
Feb 24, 2009, 10:50:30 AM2/24/09
to
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 14:54:29 +0000, Michael Harding wrote:
> At first I couldn't work out what the "Pandora" was that people kept
> referring to.

I was expecting an interesting thread about Cambridge Workstations ;)


JessH

unread,
Feb 24, 2009, 11:13:15 AM2/24/09
to
On Feb 24, 3:23 pm, "David Holden" <Spam...@apdl.co.uk> wrote:

> On 24-Feb-2009, JessH <jesshampsh...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > As I understand it, ROL claim to have sole rights for RISC OS on the
> > desktop, for versions of RISC OS based on 3.8 and beyond. Is that
> > correct?
>
> Yes
>
> > However Pandora is somewhere between a PDA and a Netbook, and could in
> > no way be described as a desktop system.
>
> 'Desktop' in this context doesn't mean a physical device, it means a device
> with the functionality of a 'desktop computer'. For example, PDA'a are
> specifically included.

A PDA can quite easily have less desktop functionality than a thin
client (in fact every windows thin client I have seen has more desktop
functionality than any windows mobile device I have used.) , so I
assume you mean that PDA's get a specific mention as being under ROL's
remit rather than them being desktop computers

> > Presumably as it stands ROL would have no argument if RO 5 were
> > licensed as a media player or a thin client system.
>
> ROL have no rights over thin clients and set top boxes. Those rights are
> still held exclusively by Pace, so they might have something to say about
> it.

So what does ROL consider Castle purchased the rights to, from Pace?

Presumably 3.7 (but didn't they already have rights to that anyway)
--
Jess

Peter Naulls

unread,
Feb 24, 2009, 12:25:45 PM2/24/09
to
David Holden wrote:
> On 24-Feb-2009, JessH <jessha...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> As I understand it, ROL claim to have sole rights for RISC OS on the
>> desktop, for versions of RISC OS based on 3.8 and beyond. Is that
>> correct?
>>
> Yes

I still think this is a disingenuous response, for reasons I've
already outlined, and which applies equally well to Castle's
"all right and title" announcement. Since it should be clear
to everyone that *no one party* owns all of what could reasonably
be defined as "RISC OS", and no one has many any public definition of
what they think "RISC OS" is, we're going absolutely no where.

Taken at face value, ROL's claim would certainly apply to such a
version, but to which components? Perhaps Jeffrey Lee would like
to help us out here.

Or perhaps I'm missing something here - is ROL's claim the
ownership of the *concept* of Desktop RISC OS? Such a claim
seems to me both legally and mentally rather unsound, unless
we are talking about imposing on some yet unnamed trademark.

Chris Hughes

unread,
Feb 24, 2009, 12:17:20 PM2/24/09
to
In message <20090224142...@trite.i.flarn.net.i.flarn.net>
Rob Kendrick <nn...@rjek.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 14:15:26 GMT
> Chris Hughes <ch...@mytardis.me.uk> wrote:

>> Be careful, it can not be called a Netbook that is a Psion
>> trademark/copyright. and they have started to enforce it recently,
>> requesting politely at the moment that existing items that being
>> described as a "netbook", and not done so, because it breaches their
>> (Psion) rights.

> Although larger companies (Dell, HP, Asus) have essentially told them
> were to go; Psion weren't actively using the trademark, which weakens
> their position considerably.

This in reality make little difference since they have prior use and
it is registered. But I know where you are coming from. To be honest I
had forgotten Psion had a netbook some time ago until the reports of
the request to stop using the name, etc..

> Additionally, people using the term "netbook" like this weakens their
> ridiculous claim, and helps the trademark become generic. (Sellotape,
> Hoover, Coke, Tannoy, etc.)

Does it? You can't called a Dyson a Hoover for example - it would be
an infrigement of trademark etc..

> Netbook netbook netbook netbook netbook! :)

:-)


--
Chris Hughes

Chris Hughes

unread,
Feb 24, 2009, 12:29:57 PM2/24/09
to
In message <ef6a42d9-936d-4d4e...@h5g2000yqh.googlegrou
ps.com>
JessH <jessha...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> On Feb 24, 3:23 pm, "David Holden" <Spam...@apdl.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 24-Feb-2009, JessH <jesshampsh...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>

[snip]


>>> Presumably as it stands ROL would have no argument if RO 5 were
>>> licensed as a media player or a thin client system.
>>
>> ROL have no rights over thin clients and set top boxes. Those rights are
>> still held exclusively by Pace, so they might have something to say about
>> it.

> So what does ROL consider Castle purchased the rights to, from Pace?

How many times does this have to done over and over and over again.

> Presumably 3.7 (but didn't they already have rights to that anyway)

They had a licence from Element 14 to produce 3.7/3.71 ROM's for the
RiscPC and A7000/A7000+ they were producing and selling at that time.
They did NOT own it, they had a licence.


--
Chris Hughes

Chris Hughes

unread,
Feb 24, 2009, 12:31:30 PM2/24/09
to
In message <513f3bb6-abc4-47ee...@g38g2000yqd.googlegro
ups.com>
JessH <jessha...@googlemail.com> wrote:

You might be happy for an un QA'd OS to be used. I would not.


--
Chris Hughes

Rob Kendrick

unread,
Feb 24, 2009, 12:36:31 PM2/24/09
to
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 17:17:20 GMT
Chris Hughes <ch...@mytardis.me.uk> wrote:

> > Additionally, people using the term "netbook" like this weakens
> > their ridiculous claim, and helps the trademark become generic.
> > (Sellotape, Hoover, Coke, Tannoy, etc.)
>
> Does it? You can't called a Dyson a Hoover for example - it would be
> an infrigement of trademark etc..

I think you'll find that a hell of a lot of people call Dysons
Hoovers. When this happens, the trademark becomes generisised, and
there's not a lot the owner can do about it.

B.

Peter Naulls

unread,
Feb 24, 2009, 12:49:19 PM2/24/09
to

What's this QA process you speak of? Some magic water sprinkled
over the code by the vendor to say it's had QA? You weren't
thinking of Windows, Mac OS X, or Linux were you? The reality
is that whilst every OS vendor has good intentions and will
try and do as much testing as practical, major bugs often slip
through, and many times code gets ship after it looks "good
enough". The funding and time constraints mean little else is
possible if there is to be any product at all - especially
for RISC OS.

Back in the real world; generally the only code that receives
thorough verification and testing is stuff in aircraft/spacecraft,
and perhaps things like medical equipment. At this point, I
invoke druck to discuss (IIRC) the toilets on one of the Airbuses.

Charlie

unread,
Feb 24, 2009, 2:32:37 PM2/24/09
to
Speaking as someone who's been away from things RiscOS for some time I
must say these discussions are very interesting...
...it's broadly the same kind of discussion that's only just started
to fade in the Amiga community at large as that platform has made the
difficult transition from 'commercial' to 'retro'.

Why a difficult, or even transition?

Well, once the platform got sufficiently small that it had no further
commercial viability the companies that could claim any rights to the
IP began a long wrangle over who owned what in an attempt to maintain
whatever revenue remained.., thus muddying the waters still further.
This has resulted in a number of effects:
-Many remaining users left in despair rather than need.
-Issues have become so complex that any further development has been
stifled.
-The 'Amiga' has become a retro-platform because there will be no new
development of the OS, or replacements for the ageing hardware.
-Even hobbyist projects are stifled because home developers don't know
where they stand on:
a) what IP they can legally use.
b) what hardware is available.
c) how long there will be Amigas to play with.
d) how to get their hands on schematics, development manuals.

In a nut-shell; for the Amiga this kind of mess means that the
platform is now firmly in the past. No present & certainly no future.
(AROS aside, maybe)

Does any of this sound familiar..?

To my mind the only 'future' for RiscOS (if there is to be a future
other than as a retro-hobby) is what many in the Amiga community at
large wish had happened while the opportunity remained:
For the remaining owner(s) of the IP (software & hardware) to have the
sense to realise any commercial viability has long gone & publish the
whole lot freely to the public.
-Sources & Schematics-
That way a chance remains for a transformation into a viable minority
platform for 'enthusiasts' rather than just a static retro-hobby
bereft of any further development. One can still sell hardware &
software to owners of the former but not in general to the latter.

Back on topic:
RO5 for the Pandora? Why not?
Not my cup of tea to be honest but it would be a sign of development /
interest.
It's not going to happen! At least while any potential developers have
no firm foundation on which to base their work.

Sorry, a rather longer post than I intended.

Ben Avison

unread,
Feb 24, 2009, 2:50:39 PM2/24/09
to
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009, Chris Hughes <ch...@mytardis.me.uk> wrote:
> You might be happy for an un QA'd OS to be used. I would not.

As is your prerogative. But you can't expect a warranty from a free
(gratis)
product, such as the one ROOL is administering. If you want QA, then you
have to find a commercial operator who will offer what you want - and they
will need to charge you for it. It's not so very different from the way
that
many businesses operate in the Linux world - for example you can get CentOS
for free, and if you want warranty and support for it, you can get Red Hat
Enterprise Linux which is very similar, but you will have to pay for that
privilege.

Commercial operators have to make a business case for offering support. If
not enough people are prepared to pay enough money to make support for a
given chipset worthwhile, then such a commercial offering will not appear.
It's telling that in general, you'll find that open source OSes will run on
many more hardware platforms than their commercial equivalents.

Does that mean that there's no point in developing a non-commercial port of
RISC OS to any given chipset which may not be currently commercially
viable? I'd say no - not least because the existence of a non-commercial
port makes it much easier for a commercial operator to come along at at
later date and offer the support that people like yourself demand.

This is why I believe ROOL and ROL are not in competition with one another,
despite the fact that some people seem to feel otherwise. In fact, ROOL and
ROL have the potential to complement one another and provide a better RISC
OS for everybody - and the current mudslinging is doing nobody any good.

Ben

Jess

unread,
Feb 24, 2009, 3:51:35 PM2/24/09
to
In message <70i7qmF...@mid.individual.net>
"David Holden" <Spa...@apdl.co.uk> wrote:

> No, that's irrelevant. If ROL just 'give' ROOL permission then thay have no
> 'rights' and it can be revoked at any time. If ROL were to cease trading
> then whoever acquired their assets (eg. the bank) would almost certainly
> withdraw permission and possibly even demand payment from ROOL.
>
> If ROOL pay ROL a 'consideration' for a licence, even a token 1 GBP, then it
> would survive ROL and it would be ROOL that would be in a position to seek
> damages if the new owner of ROL's assets had tried to stop them doing what
> they're doing.
>
> Still, too late now. The opportunity has been lost :-(

Why? Is there a time limit on granting licenses?

ROL presumably see the benefits of an open RISC OS.

Could they not issue a non commercial license for the branch of RISC
OS that leads to RO 5 that mirrors the Castle license? (Whether via
ROOL or not.)

Then the developers would know their work was legally available for
free with no uncertainty about whether it really was Castle's to give
away or not.

This would be a big statement of support for ROOL and unity.

The commercial side could be ignored for now. It may never turn out to
be an issue.

Thomas Milius

unread,
Feb 24, 2009, 4:32:44 PM2/24/09
to
In message <5f2d9a32...@o2.co.uk>
Chris Hughes <ch...@mytardis.me.uk> wrote:

> In message <f2e6583...@southfarm.plus.com>
> Tim Powys-Lybbe <t...@powys.org> wrote:
>
>

> This would cost a LOT of money for which neither party has the
> finances to afford it. You would kill RISC OS completely.
>
> In any case if Castle were so sure of there case a few years ago
> against RISCOS Ltd why have they not pursued it further.
>

As you mentioned above. Perhaps it would have cost a lot of money. And on the
other side lots of users would have been angry. Perhaps Castle wanted to
keep the OS community. There was and still is place for both sides. RISC OS
Select offers a couple of additional features which might be interesting to
the users. And I am personally regarding RISC OS 5 as the better OS base.
However I had ever the feeling that ROL wanted and wants the RISC OS market
for its own, unshared, independently of the quality of the product they are
offering. At Castle my feeling was always the opposite.

Why ROL accepted an agreement with Castle in case they had the only rights?

AFAIR ROL announced a short time ago:

"...With RISCOS Ltd having now (!!!) confirmed it's ownership of
versions of RISC OS..."

This impiles to me that they were not able to proof to be the owner before.
A bit silly to find out another fact after 10 years after all this
discussions.

Overall what has or better should have happend that they are now?
Is there perhaps a document from 1998 which proofs the opposite and just lost
its validity at law court after 10 years?

I find the activists on ROOL shall go on with the porting perhaps not only
with the Pandora. Every change made should get a remark in the copyright that
ROL is not permitted to use it. Perhaps this can clarify the situation in
pragmatical way. EG if ROL would accept that ROOL/Castle is owner of RISC OS
5 and that RISC OS 5 can be used on desktop machines (whatever this should
be) without their allowance the writers of the port could think about
removing the clauses in the code allowing ROL to use code for own projects or
something like this.

Regards

Thomas Milius

Chris Hughes

unread,
Feb 24, 2009, 6:10:20 PM2/24/09
to
In message <b0d6d132...@thomas-milius.t-online.de>
Thomas Milius <Thomas...@t-online.de> wrote:

> In message <5f2d9a32...@o2.co.uk>
> Chris Hughes <ch...@mytardis.me.uk> wrote:

>> In message <f2e6583...@southfarm.plus.com>
>> Tim Powys-Lybbe <t...@powys.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>> This would cost a LOT of money for which neither party has the
>> finances to afford it. You would kill RISC OS completely.
>>
>> In any case if Castle were so sure of there case a few years ago
>> against RISCOS Ltd why have they not pursued it further.
>>

> As you mentioned above. Perhaps it would have cost a lot of money. And on the
> other side lots of users would have been angry. Perhaps Castle wanted to
> keep the OS community. There was and still is place for both sides. RISC OS
> Select offers a couple of additional features which might be interesting to
> the users.

You have either never used the current version of Select or don't
really want to know. It much better then RISC OS 5 as far as I am
concerned and I have used RO5.

> And I am personally regarding RISC OS 5 as the better OS base.

Thats your personal choice.

> However I had ever the feeling that ROL wanted and wants the RISC OS market
> for its own, unshared, independently of the quality of the product they are
> offering.

I do hope you have something to back up those statements.

> At Castle my feeling was always the opposite.

Your opinion, other disagree

> Why ROL accepted an agreement with Castle in case they had the only rights?

This has been explained I don't know how many times over the past
year, go an do a google and find out.

> AFAIR ROL announced a short time ago:

> "...With RISCOS Ltd having now (!!!) confirmed it's ownership of
> versions of RISC OS..."

> This impiles to me that they were not able to proof to be the owner before.

It does nothing of the sort, it simply means time has had to spent
going through *all* the paperwork. To verify things.

> A bit silly to find out another fact after 10 years after all this
> discussions.

> Overall what has or better should have happend that they are now?
> Is there perhaps a document from 1998 which proofs the opposite and just lost
> its validity at law court after 10 years?

No idea what you are on about here.

> I find the activists on ROOL shall go on with the porting perhaps not only
> with the Pandora. Every change made should get a remark in the copyright that
> ROL is not permitted to use it. Perhaps this can clarify the situation in
> pragmatical way. EG if ROL would accept that ROOL/Castle is owner of RISC OS
> 5 and that RISC OS 5 can be used on desktop machines (whatever this should
> be) without their allowance the writers of the port could think about
> removing the clauses in the code allowing ROL to use code for own projects or
> something like this.

So supposing it was found the licence Castle had given ROOL was in
fact invalid/illegal. Is ROOL going to ask everyone to return the
illegal version - somehow I don't think so, so money is lost to the
owner.


This is my last post to CSA.Misc.


--
Chris Hughes

Chris Hughes

unread,
Feb 24, 2009, 5:59:30 PM2/24/09
to
In message <op.upvf2pnxb3tjgs@balaptop>
"Ben Avison" <usenet...@avison.me.uk> wrote:

> On Tue, 24 Feb 2009, Chris Hughes <ch...@mytardis.me.uk> wrote:
>> You might be happy for an un QA'd OS to be used. I would not.

> As is your prerogative. But you can't expect a warranty from a free
> (gratis) product, such as the one ROOL is administering.

I did not say I did. As I also said I would not be interested in it
because I have little or no confidence it was a legal product, or any
value to me. I can no advantages in using was is in effect an older
version of the OS.

>If you want QA, then you have to find a commercial operator who will
>offer what you want - and they will need to charge you for it. It's
>not so very different from the way that many businesses operate in the
>Linux world - for example you can get CentOS for free, and if you want
>warranty and support for it, you can get Red Hat Enterprise Linux
>which is very similar, but you will have to pay for that privilege.

I already have Linux on one of my PC's thank you.

> Commercial operators have to make a business case for offering support. If
> not enough people are prepared to pay enough money to make support for a
> given chipset worthwhile, then such a commercial offering will not appear.
> It's telling that in general, you'll find that open source OSes will run on
> many more hardware platforms than their commercial equivalents.

You know what I don't care. I will use what *I* want. You would
obviously prefer a free OS, etc. fine as long as its legal (and that
is still a matter for debate).


[snip]


> This is why I believe ROOL and ROL are not in competition with one another,
> despite the fact that some people seem to feel otherwise. In fact, ROOL and
> ROL have the potential to complement one another and provide a better RISC
> OS for everybody - and the current mudslinging is doing nobody any good.

Something we basically agree on.


--
Chris Hughes

Chris Hughes

unread,
Feb 24, 2009, 5:59:46 PM2/24/09
to
In message <20090224173...@trite.i.flarn.net.i.flarn.net>
Rob Kendrick <nn...@rjek.com> wrote:

Sadly you have missed the point. What people general call a vacuum
cleaner a "hoover" is still not really relevant since its the name
used in a product description etc that is subject to a registered
trademark, etc..


--
Chris Hughes

Peter Naulls

unread,
Feb 24, 2009, 9:09:29 PM2/24/09
to
Chris Hughes wrote:
> In message <op.upvf2pnxb3tjgs@balaptop>
> "Ben Avison" <usenet...@avison.me.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 24 Feb 2009, Chris Hughes <ch...@mytardis.me.uk> wrote:
>>> You might be happy for an un QA'd OS to be used. I would not.
>
>> As is your prerogative. But you can't expect a warranty from a free
>> (gratis) product, such as the one ROOL is administering.
>
> I did not say I did. As I also said I would not be interested in it
> because I have little or no confidence it was a legal product, or any
> value to me. I can no advantages in using was is in effect an older
> version of the OS.

The same thing can be said about RISC OS 6 et al. Or for that
matter, those who cling to 3.7.

>> If you want QA, then you have to find a commercial operator who will
>> offer what you want - and they will need to charge you for it. It's
>> not so very different from the way that many businesses operate in the
>> Linux world - for example you can get CentOS for free, and if you want
>> warranty and support for it, you can get Red Hat Enterprise Linux
>> which is very similar, but you will have to pay for that privilege.
>
> I already have Linux on one of my PC's thank you.

But miss the point being made - what QA is being done here, and why
is it different to RISC OS?

>> Commercial operators have to make a business case for offering support. If
>> not enough people are prepared to pay enough money to make support for a
>> given chipset worthwhile, then such a commercial offering will not appear.
>> It's telling that in general, you'll find that open source OSes will run on
>> many more hardware platforms than their commercial equivalents.
>
> You know what I don't care. I will use what *I* want. You would
> obviously prefer a free OS, etc. fine as long as its legal (and that
> is still a matter for debate).

A convenient opinion; but one which is contrary to what ever point it
was you were making about QA. It's all very well to parade up
and down about what you want, but such selfish requirements either
involve money, or you doing something yourself (beyond offering
confusing opinions, that is). Certainly, I don't see that you're
doing anything to progress the current situation, except harping
on about how great RISC OS 6 is.


Andrew Hodgkinson

unread,
Feb 25, 2009, 6:14:34 AM2/25/09
to
Some time ago, Chris Hughes wrote:

> They are an a lot of "experts" in these groups who think they know who
> owns what [...] I have not personally seen the paper work so do not
> know who is right or wrong.

Then kindly desist from posting such guesswork and speculation. It's a
bit rich to write a post accusing others of it, then continue to post
several messages in which you do exactly the same thing. For example:

> They had a licence from Element 14 to produce 3.7/3.71 ROM's for the
> RiscPC and A7000/A7000+ they were producing and selling at that time.
> They did NOT own it, they had a licence.

You know that for a fact then? You *have* seen the paperwork?

You also wrote:

> The only problem comes if in the future, Castle is found to have
> given ROOL an invalid licence as they have chosen not to carry out
> due diligence [...]

So you're publically claiming that either Castle, ROOL or both failed to
do due dilligence?

--
TTFN, Andrew Hodgkinson
Find some electronic music at: Photos, wallpaper, software and more:
http://pond.org.uk/music.html http://pond.org.uk/

Ste (news)

unread,
Feb 25, 2009, 6:12:57 AM2/25/09
to
In article <56c8d932...@o2.co.uk>,

Chris Hughes <ne...@noonehere.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <op.upvf2pnxb3tjgs@balaptop>
> "Ben Avison" <usenet...@avison.me.uk> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 24 Feb 2009, Chris Hughes <ch...@mytardis.me.uk> wrote:
> >> You might be happy for an un QA'd OS to be used. I would not.
>
> > As is your prerogative. But you can't expect a warranty from a free
> > (gratis) product, such as the one ROOL is administering.
>
> I did not say I did. As I also said I would not be interested in it
> because I have little or no confidence it was a legal product, or any
> value to me. I can no advantages in using was is in effect an older
> version of the OS.

Snore - you clearly have your eyes shut in that case. "No advantages" to
using what is in effect a current RISC OS on current hardware as opposed to
any RISC OS obsolete hardware.

> >If you want QA, then you have to find a commercial operator who will
> >offer what you want - and they will need to charge you for it. It's
> >not so very different from the way that many businesses operate in the
> >Linux world - for example you can get CentOS for free, and if you want
> >warranty and support for it, you can get Red Hat Enterprise Linux
> >which is very similar, but you will have to pay for that privilege.
>
> I already have Linux on one of my PC's thank you.

Which has nothing to do with anything. What point are you trying to make
here?

> > Commercial operators have to make a business case for offering support.
> > If not enough people are prepared to pay enough money to make support
> > for a given chipset worthwhile, then such a commercial offering will not
> > appear. It's telling that in general, you'll find that open source OSes
> > will run on many more hardware platforms than their commercial
> > equivalents.
>
> You know what I don't care. I will use what *I* want. You would
> obviously prefer a free OS, etc. fine as long as its legal (and that
> is still a matter for debate).

All very high and mighty, I'm sure.

What, may I ask, do you expect to happen to you personally? Where is your
liability? ROOL would not be working on the project we are if we felt there
was a sniff of a chance that we were engaged in something illegal. Wake up!
We have our personal reputations to think of here and we're not going to
willingly have "spent n years working on an illegal enterprise" on our CVs
are we?

Steve

--
Steve Revill @ Home
Note: All opinions expressed herein are my own.

Ste (news)

unread,
Feb 25, 2009, 6:27:49 AM2/25/09
to
In article <36c6da32...@o2.co.uk>,

Chris Hughes <ne...@noonehere.co.uk> wrote:
> This is my last post to CSA.Misc.

Erm, this is comp.sys.acorn.hardware.

This "toys out of pram" thing people do about not posting to a group any
more seems a bit juvenile - what's so hard to accept about other people
having a different point of view to you? They are even going to the trouble
of explaining _why_ their views differ to yours. The above response feels
like something from the "LA LA LA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU" school of debating.

Peter Naulls

unread,
Feb 25, 2009, 1:02:27 PM2/25/09
to
Ste (news) wrote:
> In article <36c6da32...@o2.co.uk>,
> Chris Hughes <ne...@noonehere.co.uk> wrote:
>> This is my last post to CSA.Misc.
>
> Erm, this is comp.sys.acorn.hardware.
>
> This "toys out of pram" thing people do about not posting to a group any
> more seems a bit juvenile - what's so hard to accept about other people
> having a different point of view to you? They are even going to the trouble
> of explaining _why_ their views differ to yours. The above response feels
> like something from the "LA LA LA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU" school of debating.
>

Don't worry Steve, it's his spring* ritual - he does it every year about
this time. I'm sure we'll see him back on csa.misc (sic) in a few
months ;-)

Anyway, still hoping someone might post just that - some kind of
cohesive alternate point of view; not just the same old trotted
out ponies.

* Well, it might still be winter in the UK.

Message has been deleted

Jess

unread,
Feb 25, 2009, 1:50:40 PM2/25/09
to
In message <vK9pl.41825$Bt3....@newsfe03.ams2>
Andrew Hodgkinson <ahod...@rowing.org.uk> wrote:

> Some time ago, Chris Hughes wrote:

>> The only problem comes if in the future, Castle is found to have
>> given ROOL an invalid licence as they have chosen not to carry out
>> due diligence [...]

> So you're publically claiming that either Castle, ROOL or both failed to
> do due dilligence?

I don't think he said that much, there is an if in the statement.

--
Jess Iyonix
Hotmail is my spam trap.

Andrew

unread,
Feb 26, 2009, 3:34:36 PM2/26/09
to
In message <c96d7f325...@chiemgau-net.de>
"Alex' A. Interrants" <bavari...@usenet.cnntp.org> wrote:

> In der Nachricht <6f5f9431...@no.reply>
> Andrew <nu...@email.invalid> hat geschrieben:

>> Anybody planning to get a Pandora should RO5 be ported for it? Am I
>> right in thinking the price is going to be <£200 for Pandora?
>>
>> Are ROOL helping with this? How about Castle or major dealers - do
>> they see the potential in supporting this project?

> RISC OS is great for some kind of work whereas the Pandora isn't
> designed for RISC OS. It's just another 'split' of the OS. I don't
> think RISC OS can be very usable on this machine.

Split from what? I thought the whole idea of HALs and all the work
behind them was to enable porting to different hardware.

Andrew
--

Paul Stewart

unread,
Feb 26, 2009, 4:05:21 PM2/26/09
to
In message <ef6a42d9-936d-4d4e...@h5g2000yqh.googlegrou
ps.com>
JessH <jessha...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> So what does ROL consider Castle purchased the rights to, from Pace?

He's my two cents worth,from bits and pieces I have heard over the
years. I'm sure everyone will disagree!

Castle purchased from Pace what they puchased from Element 14.
Castle then exclusively licensed back to Pace, the bits Pace still
required at the time.

IMO that would mean Castle purchased the IPR, but were limited as to
what they could do because the desktop market was exclusively licensed
to ROL(under their agreement with E14) and the Set Top Box and
anything else they wanted at the time was under exclusive licence to
Pace.

Regards
--
Paul Stewart - Far Bletchley, Milton Keynes, England.
(msn:pauls...@phawfaux.co.uk)

RISC OS Wakefield '09 show. Saturday Apil 25th. Be there and be
seen!
http://www.wakefieldshow.org.uk/

Vince M Hudd

unread,
Feb 26, 2009, 5:04:12 PM2/26/09
to
Paul Stewart <pauls...@phawfaux.co.uk> wrote:

> I'm sure everyone will disagree!

I disagree. I don't think you're sure at all - and with good reason; not
everyone reads this group. :p

--
Vince M Hudd
Soft Rock Software

David Holden

unread,
Feb 27, 2009, 2:38:57 AM2/27/09
to

On 26-Feb-2009, Paul Stewart <pauls...@phawfaux.co.uk> wrote:

> He's my two cents worth,from bits and pieces I have heard over the
> years. I'm sure everyone will disagree!
>
> Castle purchased from Pace what they puchased from Element 14.
> Castle then exclusively licensed back to Pace, the bits Pace still
> required at the time.
>
> IMO that would mean Castle purchased the IPR, but were limited as to
> what they could do because the desktop market was exclusively licensed
> to ROL(under their agreement with E14) and the Set Top Box and
> anything else they wanted at the time was under exclusive licence to
> Pace.

Wow, congratulations! Someone who has actually taken note of what's been
said by the people who know rather than the people who have preferred to
listen to rumour and speculation. You'll also find that none of this has
ever been denied by Castle.

In fact ROL's "exclusive market area" was extended somewhat by Pace since
they had absolutely no interest in anything *but* set top boxes and thin
clients. This was done at the time of the RON project and when ROL were
investigating other ideas for RISC OS. Put this together with what you've
already said and you will begin to understand why Castle spent tens of
thousands of pounds on lawyers' fees trying to 'break' ROL a few years ago
but eventually had to give up having achieved precisely nothing.

--
David Holden - APDL - <http://www.apdl.co.uk>

VinceH

unread,
Feb 27, 2009, 4:11:08 AM2/27/09