RISC OS Developments announce acquisition of Castle Technology Ltd and RISC OS IPR (don't panic!)

I think Andrew has politely brought the ROL-related dreaming back down to earth. I think one or two people were taking the word ‘cooperation’ too far! I suspect it is more of a ‘play nice’ arrangement, rather than the opening up of any source code. Baby steps…

Is this good news? Is this bad news? I honestly don’t know. Far too little details, more questions than answers. Like this here:

Existing licence arrangements will remain unchanged, and anyone wishing to use RISC OS on a commercial device should now contact RISC OS Developments for further information.

What does this mean wrt future license agreements? Do pricing and details of commercial usage change? Previously, it was very transparent what the costs and obligations were. And now?

Or this one:

We have also been in discussion with VirtualAcorn/3QD/RISCOS Ltd and we are sure you will be pleased to hear that historical grievances have been put aside, and that a co-operative future is planned.

What is that, a “co-operative future”? Does the open source RISC OS need cooperation from a closed-source-to-the-bones company without any meaningful development resources (judging by the non-progress of their various products) and if yes in what way? Does Aaron still believe hat he owns all of RISC OS in all versions?

Well – of course I am a sceptic. Because I am a long-time RISC OS user. I pre-ordered Phoebe. I booked a flight to Acorn World 1998. I bought an Omega. I waited for Vantage. I waited for PCI-RiscStation. I pre-ordered a RiscStation Notebook. I waited for 32bit Select. I waited for RoN. I waited for the announced fusion of both RISC OS branches (do we all remember that incarnation with the same name, RISC OS Developments Ltd. IIRC?)

Fantastic news. Well done to all concerned.

Well – of course I am a sceptic.

Me too; long-serving supporters of the platform have seen many a false dawn. Let’s hope this isn’t a Microsoft-style, “embrace, extend, extinguish” play on RISC OS 5 by the ROL side of the partnership; let’s hope too that it will mean more resources for the development of RO 5 in areas such as TCP/IP and multiple-core support. If this turns out to be the case this particular new dawn will have my enthusiastic support.

Don’t expect miracles out of the gate.

Access to the source is the easy part. The miracle is getting everybody talking to each other. So, you were saying…? ;-)

play on RISC OS 5 by the ROL side of the partnership;

Uh, no.

“Subject to the restrictions set out in the remainder of this Licence Castle hereby grants to You a non-exclusive royalty free worldwide licence to use, copy and distribute the RISC OS source code and object code in any medium PROVIDED THAT you ensure that each copy You distribute incorporates the text of, or an Internet link to, this Licence. ”

In other words, if we didn’t like what was happening, provided we stick to the licence and use it non commercially, there is nothing anybody could do to prevent me taking the source that I have and putting it on a website for others. Sure, it would be stupid and yet another fork, but given that it is possible, how do you think anybody could make “a play”?

In other words, if we didn’t like what was happening, provided we stick to the licence and use it non commercially, there is nothing anybody could do to prevent me taking the source that I have and putting it on a website for others. Sure, it would be stupid and yet another fork, but given that it is possible, how do you think anybody could make “a play”?

The Castle commercial license ensured that it was impossible to keep things based on RISC OS closed source (for a long-enough time to be relevant). The new owners could easily change that. The new owners could also decide that operating ROOL as the central stewardship of RISC OS is no longer in their interest. The new owners could put a high price tag on commercial RISC OS usage for any licencee.

That would be true Microsoft embrace-extend-extinguish style.

RISC OS Developments has not yet published anything meaningful wrt their philosophy, their ideas, their plans for the future. For a company that tries to attract financing from third parties it is a very exotic approach to not actually have a website to bring some transparency to your operation. But it is very Acornish/RISC OSy.

I always found the RISC OS Open Ltd. style of operation to be a very positive exception of the RISC OS rule. Hopefully it stays that way.

RISC OS Developments has not yet published anything meaningful wrt their philosophy, their ideas, their plans for the future.

Seeing how of often Andrew updates is own website, you be in for a long wait ;)

As a few others have said, we should remember, with thanks, the work and money that Castle put into the OS and hardware, in particular, Jack Lillingston, John Ballance and staff (some still ‘RISC OS active’).
I went to Framlingham once for some hardware modification and saw the castle while there. I was told that the firm was named after the Framlingham Castle which has 13 mural towers in its curtain wall, not 26/32 as I had hoped. :-)

Well, I can confirm that we have commissioned both a web guy and a press officer, so hopefully it won’t be as “RISC OSy” as sometimes ;)

As you should know by now (and do know) we prefer not to pre-announce anything. You’ll note that all the failures / disappointments Steffen mentioned were due to pre-announcements.

However, the big clue should have been the “don’t panic” in the title. We’ve no “kill, crush, destroy” plans. Quite the opposite. But you’ll have to wait til the show to hear more.

Also, it is worth remembering that our track record in terms of supporting/honouring Castle’s shared source initiative is strong – literally all the OS code (eg. ARMX6) that we use is in the ROOL repository, with no closed source or © components. We have even paid for development that is then provided as open source.

So, please judge us on what we do, rather than your fears of what might happen. You may even be pleasantly surprised.

The new owners could easily change that.

FUD. If RISC OS was made closed source tomorrow, that would not affect existing copies of the source. You can’t retrospectively change agreements without both parties agreeing to it.

The new owners could put a high price tag on commercial RISC OS usage

Great idea, make it even less attractive. Do you mind if I pop this one in the FUD box as well?

RISC OS Developments has not yet published anything meaningful wrt their philosophy, their ideas, their plans for the future.

True, but nothing unusual there… That said, the management of the company I work for are the same. They learned that if they say something and it doesn’t work out (change in orders, problem with JIT, blah blah) they’ll have loads of people saying “but you said…”. So now they say nothing until the last moment.

I’m sure there are grand plans to work on RISC OS. But how would it help to tell everybody that? Making plans is easy. Executing them is something else entirely.

So I’ll be patient to wait, and just politely suggest that it would be really really nice if a tiny footnote on one of those plans was to crush sodding Territory and replace it with something that works. I’d like a UTF-8 capable Wimp, but hey, one wish at a time, right? ;-)

I always found the RISC OS Open Ltd. style of operation to be a very positive exception of the RISC OS rule.

Maybe things are still in discussion so we just need to wait a little longer. Try to be positive. With [redacted] and [redacted] there’s enough shit going on in the world that some good news is long overdue. So quit with the negativity, okay?

FUD. If RISC OS was made closed source tomorrow, that would not affect existing copies of the source. You can’t retrospectively change agreements without both parties agreeing to it.

Please re-read what I have written. This was not my concern at all, because I know quite well how licensing works.

Well, I can confirm that we have commissioned both a web guy and a press officer, so hopefully it won’t be as “RISC OSy” as sometimes ;)

Not only is that not as “RISC OSy” as usual, the very idea of a “press officer” is exactly the opposite of the normal “RISC OSy” way. ;)

Well done to all involved – not just for the purchase, but also for taking steps to leave the past where it belongs. (Although I recognise there’s still a lot to do in that respect.)

So quit with the negativity, okay?

I’m sorry if it comes across that way: maybe I got a little carried away with the Microsoft reference. It’s just that, like Steffen, I feel a strong loyalty to ROOL, without whom there is no earthly doubt that I for one would have ceased to be an active RISC OS user many years ago, and the hundreds (probably thousands, but don’t tell the missus) of pounds sterling that I’ve since spent on RISC OS companies would have swelled the coffers of some US tech giant instead. So forgive my caution: as a former client of mine once remarked, on hearing that I planned to alter my employer: “I hate change”! And I’d like to add my thanks, as a former Iyonix owner, to Castle as well, who also kept the flame alive at a critical time. I wish the new owners well, and I hope and trust they will prove worthy of our collective faith.

Steffen – I did read. You are concerned the new owners could change things (including the licence, by the looks of it) plus demote the importance of ROOL, which is the hub for a lot of the day to day (non bounty) development…

To quote RISC OS itself: Deleting the UtilityModule is foolish.

Well, I can confirm that we have commissioned both a web guy and a press officer, so hopefully it won’t be as “RISC OSy” as sometimes ;)

As you should know by now (and do know) we prefer not to pre-announce anything. You’ll note that all the failures / disappointments Steffen mentioned were due to pre-announcements.

Good to hear that there will be a web site with, hopefully regular, updates on developments (both code and PR). Small extra payment to do the R-Comp site too? :^)

Sadly those still nursing wounds from the “RISC OS wars” are likely to distrust anything from “the other side of the fence” until there is significant evidence to change their minds.
What would be useful is if Aaron joined in on a joint statement. He’s probably as near sick to the back teeth of all the sniping as people on “this side of the fence” (I think I fell off the fence on this side a while back, but mostly lost interest in the arguments well before that)

Steffen – I did read. You are concerned

I am concerned? Now where did I write that? Please read again.

The new owners could easily change that. […] The new owners could […] That would be true Microsoft embrace-extend-extinguish style.

concerned [kənˈsəːnd] adjective meaning worried, troubled, or anxious.

<mic drop>

Rick, I just listed things that might happen (and you asked for those potentially bad things that might happen). Things that some might consider good things or bad things – it is all a question of perspective. I have not written nor suggested that I am concerned about those vague possibilities that might or might not become true. However, denying that it could happen seems to be head-in-the-sand. Just because something is a foolish thing to do does not mean that nobody will do it. Something that you and I would consider foolish might be a valid business case for someone else.

My first posting on this subject should have made clear that I believe that – with the information we currently have – we cannot possibly judge whether the news is good or bad. And I was very surprised how many people were so happy hearing the news without measingful information to back up that happiness. Bad things could happen. Good things could happen. We just don’t know.

And I was very surprised how many people were so happy

Maybe we’re sick of the negativity of the past (it’s been, like, fifteen flamin’ years) so we choose to interpret what is happening as a positive event?

Yeah, I know, there’s been practically nothing said other than “somebody else seemingly owns the rights”, but perhaps the biggest part isn’t who owns what now, but quite simply this:

we are sure you will be pleased to hear that historical grievances have been put aside, and that a co-operative future is planned.

People are talking to each other. That is a really good start. So please excuse me if I see this as a reason to dose up on the happy.

People are talking to each other. That is a really good start. So please excuse me if I see this as a reason to dose up on the happy.

The problem, I think, is that previous episodes like this one tend to stick in people’s minds.

Personally, I’ve no problem at all with ROD’s purchase and what they might plan to do. However, whilst I’d love to be proven wrong, I’m afraid that reading “historical grievances have been put aside, and that a co-operative future is planned” simply left me wondering whether everyone was really singing from the same hymn sheet this time around.

Yeah, I read through all that lot, plus a bunch of crazy on Drobe.

That link dates to 2010. Hell back then I was on MySpace… :-)

We have for a long time wanted the schism to end, so maybe give this a chance and see how it plays out?

Surely there has been enough time for everybody concerned to see that the schism has not done RISC OS any good, and that co-operation by all could advance it more.

Now, if we could only get Justin Fletcher back into development…

We have for a long time wanted the schism to end, so maybe give this a chance and see how it plays out?

Why would it play out differently this time around? I shouldn’t imagine that ROL’s “head licence” has changed much in the meantime.

Surely there has been enough time for everybody concerned to see that the schism has not done RISC OS any good, and that co-operation by all could advance it more.

It is very noble of you that you attribute good motives to all people. But past experience shows that not all (ex-)players were interested in the “greater good” of RISC OS.

I shouldn’t imagine that ROL’s “head licence” has changed much in the meantime.

Cynic. Can we form a club?