Cloverleaf Campaign is Live

Alas I can’t see any incentive for the retro-scene to invest financially in further developing RISC OS.

And for all of those who use RISC OS for non retro reasons? I’m sure there are quite a number of people here who use RISC OS but aren’t particularly interested in retro as it is usually defined.

Even though you are aware that a lot of current RISC OS software still to this day targets the API of RISC OS 2 as the minimum

I seriously doubt that. It doesn’t even have MessageTrans FFS. Or a built in CLib.
The tests I did for a fix to CLib didn’t consider RISC OS 2 as a viable target. It’s dead. It’s basically the half way house between Arthur and the versions of RISC OS that “do stuff”.

And ours has always been 32bit OS, unlike the hell of M$.

Something of an insult failure there. Sure, Windows started off 16 bit. Then went to 32 bit (sort of vaguely) and then 32 bit properly. Now? Now it’s 64 bit.
We have always been 32 bit. And we still are 32 bit.

unlike Unix which is nearly double that age and people are still trying to use it

Maybe designing an OS to get battered by well educated nerds is more useful than designing an OS for mass consumer appeal?
The reason people use Unix (usually some version of Linux) is because not only is it fairly ubiquitous, nor because the licencing is “free”, but also because it is pretty bloody solid.
The Register has a semi regular article in a series called “BORK! BORK! BORK!” which feature amusing crash/panic screens in public places. Like a big electronic menu board that has gone BSOD. There’s a reason why it’s usually Windows that has keeled over dead.

And for all of those who use RISC OS for non retro reasons? I’m sure there are quite a number of people here who use RISC OS but aren’t particularly interested in retro as it is usually defined.

Oh – that’s a different kettle of fish. I was really just answering the assertion that there’s the potential to appeal to/profit from the retro market with a modern RISC OS offering. I don’t believe there is.

David – your untrue claim, made with no measurable basis was: “There is a reason almost no one has used M$ Windows in the last couple decades (outside of work where required from old contracts), though M$ still trys to sound good by talking about copys sold, even though most are preinstaled and removed completely within half an hour of the computer being unboxed, so a real OS can be used.”

Unfortunately, while there is indeed a lot of good in Unix, there is still a lack of agreement of what Unix is, even with all the standards.

Easy, it’s THE OS of C.

And today, a family of operating systems that share a lot of common standards.
Really a lot, so there is almost no software made for one that would not compile on another.

And more important: RISC OS is not a Unix clone. So all of this is a bit irrelevant here.
Even if is RISC OS was, a long time ago, also a family of OSes :)

@DavidS

I think everyone on this forum use RISC OS and have ZERO interest in Retro, I know I have no interest in Retro.

I do have a retro side, but that’s not why I’m interested in RISC OS-based computers.

For example, I have a BBC Micro with a memory card add-on, so I can play any of the games I remember from my youth. Also, should I want to run any Archimedes stuff, I’ve found that RedSquirrel tend to handle things like demos better, i.e. software that works using low-level code.

However, none of this has anything to do with my ARM/RISC OS interest. I’d really like to use RISC OS-based computers as my main computers simply because I find the OS to be superior to anything else out there.

For this reason, I’d like the most powerful system I can get, being able to use modern software and hardware, etc. In short, I’d like RISC OS and its community to thrive and prosper.

I don’t really have any interest in old computers in and of themselves, but sometimes they may have advantages. For example, with an emulator, there may be a perceivable delay from say pressing a key until it registers with the software, and this may affect the playability of games. Running on the original hardware eliminates such concerns.

However, none of those nostalgia/retro reasons have anything to do with my interest in the evolution and prosperity of RISC OS-based computers.

I think everyone on this forum use RISC OS and have ZERO interest in Retro,

Speaking as someone who is on this forum and whose main interest in Risc OS is for nostalgic reasons, I can inform you that you’re wrong. ;) I’m not terribly interested in gaming though, I mainly used it as a development platform and that is where my interest is still.

I think everyone on this forum use RISC OS and have ZERO interest in Retro, I know I have no interest in Retro.

I am on this forum. I have a Pi running RISC OS 5, and I have written some software recently. I also have an interest in the retro aspect of RISC OS.

Hmmm. I had asked Stefan about retro games and a few other questions in an earlier post in this thread and I had also emailed via the Cloverleaf website directly. No reply, but it seems to have triggered today’s update on the Kickstarter page!

Update 5:
“RISC OS offers multiple emulators for older computer systems like the Sinclair ZX Spectrum, Acorn Micro, Acorn Archimedes, Commodore C64 and MS DOS. We have planned to include a number of retro games from various plattforms in our Cloverleaf RISC OS distribution. Recently we got hinted that this might cause legal issues as including these games is only allowed if no profit is made from it unless you get permission by the author or get a license. Therefore we have to change our plans and will offer a way to easily download these games from various sources.”

It seems the concept of copyright isn’t being understood here, with the statement: “including these games is only allowed if no profit is made”.

Making a profit is irrelevant. If people’s retro games were to be included in the distribution without their permission and/or appropriate license granting the distribution then it’s a breach of their copyright.

“Therefore we have to change our plans and will offer a way to easily download these games from various sources.” – I can only assume that they’ll point to websites hosting games, pirated or otherwise. Even major websites such as ‘World of Spectrum’ for ZX Spectrum games do not have permissions for everything they offer for download.

It seems the update’s author doesn’t understand copyright, with the statement: “including these games is only allowed if no profit is made”. Making a profit is irrelevant.

Not necessarily. Some retro software is available on free as in free beer terms, whereby the owners permit copying, but impose restrictions on what can and can’t be done. (That said, an awful lot is flat-out pirated.)

Hmmm. I had asked Stefan about retro games and a few other questions in an earlier post in this thread and I had also emailed via the Cloverleaf website directly. No reply, but it seems to have triggered today’s update on the Kickstarter page!

I think it might’ve actually been me that triggered the update. I asked them in their Facebook group over the weekend if there was a list of games and how they were licensing them and got a somewhat hostile response followed by a swift banning from their group. I’ve just put an article on The Icon Bar which has copies of those responses, for what it’s worth.

Some retro software is available on free as in free beer terms, whereby the owners permit copying, but impose restrictions on what can and can’t be done.

Unless it specifically states that, or they have it “in writing” from the copyright holder (who may not be the author), then it’s piracy.

It is also currently a minefield due to the number of “big” players suddenly producing modern remakes of old consoles and building in a large number of their previous games. Which are now suddenly important to them, and should no longer be thought of as “abandonware”.

Anybody who thinks it is okay to deal with Spectrum games ought to read this: http://www.theregister.com/2017/04/19/retro_computers_supplier_royalties_dispute

Oh, and this: https://www.riscosopen.org/forum/forums/9/topics/997?page=20#posts-14318

and got a somewhat hostile response followed by a swift banning from their group

[reads article] Well, that’s a good look, isn’t it?

@Andrew Poole

Interesting!

It’s clearly a subject we both are concerned about. https://www.riscosopen.org/forum/forums/1/topics/15883?page=6#posts-112105 is my first post here about it on December 10th and emailed direct too. I posed a few other questions that I’d still like addressed!

Ironic given that Rule #2 from their FB admins reads “We’re all in this together to create a welcoming environment. Let’s treat everyone with respect. Healthy debates are natural, but kindness is required.” Need to be a little less prickly, methinks.

It seems the update’s author doesn’t understand copyright, with the statement: “including these games is only allowed if no profit is made”. Making a profit is irrelevant.

Not necessarily.

Actually Jim is spot on. Correct as correct can be.

The root of the issue is that copyright doesn’t need a document to actually exist and the owner must gift/sell specific rights to anyone wanting use or distribute.

In many, and probably most, cases the copyright owner has forgotten to put any statement into the release and then technically you can’t use it at all because you haven’t been given the right. Hence the common inclusion of a statement including various words like:

• “free” (you downloaded it from their site so you can use it without cost)
• “pass it on if you wish” (or similar words) – distribute if you like
• “no profit” – I retain the right to be paid everything on this, so you aren’t going to

Others use phrases like “do what you like” and thus hand over the distribution rights etc.

On the first Pi bundle some authors were not consulted and were understandably peeved. The advice Cloverleaf have been given is just advising them not to repeat that mistake. Most of those authors would probably be insistent on tidying up a few little things in the software and then have it go out free with their blessing if asked

@Andrew Poole

I’ve posted a response to their FB page as well, where I fully support you.

Maybe my account will be banned as well. :)

In that case, so goes my £1000 pledge.

@Jim B

It’s clearly a subject we both are concerned about. https://www.riscosopen.org/forum/forums/1/topics/15883?page=6#posts-112105 is my first post here about it on December 10th and emailed direct too. I posed a few other questions that I’d still like addressed!

I think your posting was well-written, polite and positive, and if your concerns were addressed in an appropriate manner by Cloverleaf, it would only benefit the project.

The lack of action or response to your concerns is not a good sign.

I’ve just put an article on The Icon Bar which has copies of those responses, for what it’s worth.

Welcome back. When’s your next article appearing?

The lack of action or response to your concerns is not a good sign.

I would not say that. All the rest (new computers, new features) is really enough for me.

To be honest, I did not expect anything on the retro side (I’m old enough to “borrow” old games by myself). But I did understand that the Sinclair computers are really important for Stefan. Not for me: I prefer the Amstrad games :)

Nota: on a related subject, I really like the JASPP initiative, and all these games, now free. I hope we’ll see more titles soon.

I’ve just put an article on The Icon Bar which has copies of those responses, for what it’s worth.

Welcome back. When’s your next article appearing?

Probably over the next few days. I’ve got a couple of things I plan to post as time allows. Hopefully a bit more frequently once I’ve finished unpacking things from a house move now that I’ve actually got room to set up some RISC OS systems again.

@Terje Slettebø
I think your posting was well-written, polite and positive, and if your concerns were addressed in an appropriate manner by Cloverleaf, it would only benefit the project.

Thank you.

@David Feugey
> The lack of action or response to your concerns is not a good sign.
I would not say that. All the rest (new computers, new features) is really enough for me.

It’s no longer the question’s subject (e.g. retro games) that’s the issue here now. It’s the fact that questions are being ignored (in my case) or answered partially in a very hostile manner, as in Andrew’s case.

We both had legitimate questions to ask, I asked about the retro games and recycle/reuse plus sustainable distribution – the two sections from the Kickstarter page that just had nonsense about paper packaging. To have no response to my questions speaks volumes.

To go even further, and ban somebody from the FaceBook group for asking a very relevant question to my eyes demonstrates that there was no concept of copyright and they just wish to avoid the subject altogether.

Even in a Twitter response (https://twitter.com/RISCOSproject/status/1340674459372376071) he gives to one of Andrew’s points it’s worded to state that Andrew is just being negative towards the campaign.

(To quote the response: Yes I have enough of people who can only bring negativity in the group and project. I looks like more people will enjoy when the project fails than if they want to support the development of RISC OS.)

Sadly, by acting in such a manner as this, by either ignoring, insulting or attacking the user base who raised concerns or were just looking for further clarification on a few points, it shows they just want an ‘easy way out’. Cloverleaf’s actions clearly show that the toxicity is not on the part of those who are asking questions, rather it is with themselves.

I’ve been following the project on Facebook, I was particularly interested in the Retro Games content, but can see all of the posts have now been removed from the Cloverleaf Facebook group (including the message Terje posted earlier).

Are the Cloverleaf administrators now attempting to sweep everything under the carpet? I think Stefan & Co need to do some serious backtracking, as if he carries on behaving like he has been, I can see more people considering withdrawing their pledges, for this already-struggling project.

I captured Terje’s post before it was wiped and enclose it below for anyone interested.

Post by Terje to Cloverleaf Facebook Group, 23rd December:

I don’t think banning Andrew Poole from the Facebook group (as he claims has happened) and deleting his message for posting a reasonable question about handling copyright is an acceptable behaviour on the part of the Cloverleaf administrators.

Group rule #2 of the FB page says:

“We’re all in this together to create a welcoming environment. Let’s treat everyone with respect. Healthy debates are natural, but kindness is required.”

Insinuating that Andrew Poole from his reasonable question – which I felt would actually help Cloverleaf if properly addressed – was intended to hurt Cloverleaf, by bringing up unrelated entities like Microsoft, is offensive and a clear violation of the group’s own rules of conduct.

To add insult to injury, his posting was deleted and his account banned.

I expect Cloverleaf to post an explanation of their own actions, along with an apology, if they find that it’s appropriate, which I think it is based on my information so far.

I’ve pledged [£1000] to Cloverleaf, because I very much welcome this initiative.

However that pledge will be revoked if Cloverleaf continue to act in this manner, or fail to respond appropriately to the current issue.

It’s no longer the question’s subject (e.g. retro games) that’s the issue here now. It’s the fact that questions are being ignored (in my case) or answered partially in a very hostile manner, as in Andrew’s case.

We both had legitimate questions to ask, I asked about the retro games and recycle/reuse plus sustainable distribution – the two sections from the Kickstarter page that just had nonsense about paper packaging. To have no response to my questions speaks volumes.

To go even further, and ban somebody from the FaceBook group for asking a very relevant question to my eyes demonstrates that there was no concept of copyright and they just wish to avoid the subject altogether.

Even in a Twitter response (https://twitter.com/RISCOSproject/status/1340674459372376071) he gives to one of Andrew’s points it’s worded to state that Andrew is just being negative towards the campaign.

Insinuating that Andrew Poole from his reasonable question – which I felt would actually help Cloverleaf if properly addressed – was intended to hurt Cloverleaf, by bringing up unrelated entities like Microsoft, is offensive and a clear violation of the group’s own rules of conduct.

To add insult to injury, his posting was deleted and his account banned.

I expect Cloverleaf to post an explanation of their own actions, along with an apology, if they find that it’s appropriate, which I think it is based on my information so far.

Just as a quick update, I’ve just updated the article on The Icon Bar with a note that I’ve had an email from Stefan this afternoon apologising for the Social Media responses and noting that he’s also removed the ban from the Facebook group.

Cloverleaf’s actions clearly show that the toxicity is not on the part of those who are asking questions, rather it is with themselves.

What a drama :)

Just as a quick update, I’ve just updated the article on The Icon Bar with a note that I’ve had an email from Stefan this afternoon apologising for the Social Media responses and noting that he’s also removed the ban from the Facebook group.

I was just asking myself if someone did send a mail to Stefan (as I know the media guy/girl can be a bit impetuous).

@Lewey

>I captured Terje’s post before it was wiped and enclose it below for anyone interested.

Thank you. I even kept a copy myself, as I wouldn’t be the slightest surprised to see my message disappearing, given what has happened so far.

@Andrew Pool.

>Just as a quick update, I’ve just updated the article on The Icon Bar with a note that I’ve had an email from Stefan this afternoon apologising for the Social Media responses and noting that he’s also removed the ban from the Facebook group.

Good, they seem to be learning.

Learning, or damage control?

Hmm, 13 days to go and only halfway to the target. Still, managing to reach 25K is impressive.

It seems the concept of copyright isn’t being understood here, with the statement: “including these games is only allowed if no profit is made”

I believe this statement has been taken out of context. Stefan is probably not referring to copyright, but distribution rights and he is correct in his statement if he’s referring to games available through JASPP.

Stefan approached me back in August about bundling games where I pointed out that as JASPP is non-profit, the games cannot be used to promote sales of a for-profit product and that many have clauses that only allow distribution via JASPP.

None of this is really a big issue and certainly doesn’t prevent commercial products from coming bundled with JASPP distributed games, it just means they should be installed via PackMan and not be a main selling/promotion point.

@ Andrew Poole

Not wanting to imply you are wrong about being banned by cloverleaf of their facebook group, BUT, for a while now ive being hearing rumours about facebook censoring comments and or blocking / banning people since the pandemic started. I didn’t believe any of this as it didn’t make sense to me, that is until now. Various comments ( unoffensive ) ive been making, albeit a little controversial maybe as I like to think there are 2 sides to every story, have been removed and the person or persons I was exchanging comments with I have been blocked from. I am fairly certain the persons involved haven’t blocked me since the content was all fairly ammicable. Could you be wrong about cloverleaf blocking you. I don’t to start a debate, was just curious.