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 **