Amendments to we site

Not absolutely sure where to place the information about not-yet-changed references to Castle owning things, but I think amending the Welcome page would be a useful start:

What is RISC OS?

RISC OS is a computer operating system designed in Cambridge, England by Acorn. First released in 1987, its origins can be traced back to the original team that developed the Arm microprocessor. RISC OS is owned by Castle Technology Ltd. You can find out more at sites such as RISC OS Blog, riscos.info, The Icon Bar and RISCOSitory.

and then at the right on the same page:

RISC OS IPR

RISC OS an Open Source operating system owned by RISC OS Developments Ltd and licensed primarily under the Apache 2.0 license.

Not a consistent message.

Edit: Yes a typo in the subject…

I’ve performed some changes to

https://www.riscosopen.org/wiki/documentation/show/About%20RISC%20OS
https://www.riscosopen.org/wiki/documentation/show/Beginners%20FAQ:General%20Questions

I’m conscious that – being well away from anyone connected to the OS – my amends may not be entirely correct. ROOL may need to review my changes to ensure I’ve worded it correctly!

Thanks Stephen.

Just for clarity, though, RISC OS Developments bought Castle outright. Castle technically still exists, albeit that ROD hold all the shares. This was the cleanest way to achieve what was needed without huge legal costs etc.

Just for clarity, though, RISC OS Developments bought Castle outright. Castle technically still exists, albeit that ROD hold all the shares. This was the cleanest way to achieve what was needed without huge legal costs etc

Does this mean that you now own all of Castle’s IP Andrew? Specifically, does it include the hardware designs such as the IDE and SCSI podules and their associated firmware? I suspect that opening up the hardware designs for these might be quite helpful for the retro community if you felt so inclined.

opening up the hardware designs for these might be quite helpful

Econet FileStore?

Just askin’…. ;-)

I suspect that Pace only bought 32bit IPR and that therefore any 8bit IPR will be owned by MSDW Holdings or if the company closed down without the transfer of either specifically 8bit IPR or a catch all ‘Any IPR’ then the governments Treasury Solicitor ‘Bona Vacantia’ will own them!

I think Richard in his talk mentioned a very thick pile of paper telling them what they now had. It sounded like he’d only so far read the highlights.

Any Castle hardware (SCSI cards, USB podule, ethernet etc) are almost certainly in ROD’s domain now. Not that there was any stock etc. I’ll ask John next time I’m speaking with him. I’m not really sure what/how we’d do anything with that, since we’re not really set up to manufacture hardware like that. But, you’re right, it’d be helpful to see what’s what.

As for ex-Acorn products, it may be as Chris suggests (or not). I suspect that the lawyers involved in the Pace/Castle transfer had enough trouble sorting out the basics, let alone figuring out all the legacy stuff. Beyond the OS itself, there’s a lot of paperwork to read/digest. Also, some (nothing related to RISC OS) may have be lost/discarded if it wasn’t relevant to Castle’s business. Of course, this is pure speculation.

Don’t expect rapid progress, but thanks for bringing up something that I hadn’t previously considered.

As for ex-Acorn products, it may be as Chris suggests (or not). I suspect that the lawyers involved in the Pace/Castle transfer had enough trouble sorting out the basics, let alone figuring out all the legacy stuff.

Perhaps it would be an easier task just to make them free, and not try to open them.

Perhaps it would be an easier task just to make them free, and not try to open them

I think the issue is that people probably want to do things like:

1. Build new boards with mods to match current use
2. Update drivers for said products
3. Update software items to something that works on machines with a more recent OS

but all of those rely on access to data that may not exist anymore, or if it does it may not be immediately apparent whether the transferred IPR covers every aspect and that RODL therefore have the legal right to open the data to everyone and their dog.

There is a reason Andrew speaks of not expecting rapid progress rather than a plain dismissal.

Basically RODL bought a big bucket of stuff and like a lot of the job lot bundles you get at a car boot/auction there is more to sort through than was immediately apparent when buying it for the stuff fully on display.

I was referring to software, not hardware offers.
It would be very interesting, even if usable only under ROS26 emulation.

The other thing I should stress on this topic is that Richard and I are unpaid for ROD work, so our day-to-day priority has to be earning enough to put food on the table with our regular RISC OS jobs (Orpheus and R-Comp/RCI respectively). This limits the time we have available to do “off topic” work (by which I mean things like wading through paperwork).

At the risk of sounding very pointed, if we had just one month of our (below min wage!) monthly salaries covered (by a.n.other generous donation) to ease the worry of each month, we’d be able to allocate a lot more ROD time. As it is, we fit it in around our other work as best we can. This summer, it rather took over, leaving us both scrambling to catch up.

OK, I’ll say no more on the topic, but we’ll see what can be done when things calm down a bit.

RISC OS is an Open Source operating system owned by RISC OS Developments Ltd and licensed primarily under the Apache 2.0 license.

Regarding this “sidebar”, the final word should be spelled “licence” as it’s a noun.

the final word should be spelled “licence”

Whilst agreeing in principle, it is a US license, and clicking on the link provided clearly spells it in that American English fashion. Perhaps “license” in quotation marks to indicate that it is a literal quote, not an inadvertent error?

It’s not part of the hyperlink and it has a lowercase L, so I interpreted it as being part of the ROOL site rather than part of the actual title. The actual title is “Apache License, Version 2.0” which is a bit of a mouthful!

As John says, write it once as “Apache License, Version 2.0” (the full official name), and then we should refer to it afterwards as “licence” (because we’re British and know that licence != license).

“Apache License, Version 2.0” (the full official name)

That seems a sensible compromise – the side panel is not pressed for space as far as I can see! Make that the link all in quotes.