Licence fee

Assuming that ROOL are successful and soon after a Cortex A-9 hardware machine comes onto the market, we have a RISC OS ROM image that will work on that machine, how much will the licence fee be to either sell a ROM image for the machine or, more likely, to resell machines fitted with RISC OS? Clearly once a wholesale source of such machines is established, then a retailer installing the RISC OS image and matching them up with suitable monitors etc. to sell as a ‘package’ would be able to appeal to all those wanting to replace ageing RISC PCs and Iyonices, provided the licence fee was not too high.

Do we know the likely amount of the licence fee – it’s worth exploring now so that we don’t run into commercial difficulties once the technical difficulties have been sorted.

Castle will have an idea about this. And because of the IPR dispute, ROL should also be asked.

Perhaps the solution is to pay both a fee.

Agreed – that’s the safer option. And a preferred consequence of paying ROL a fee would be that they contribute towards the cost of them tidying their code so that it could also be shared and merged with the CTL source. Depending on expected volumes, in the short term I think it’d be cheaper to pay two fees than pay legal fees to get to the bottom of the mess!

And how’s this for a suggestion?

1. Establish some sort of independent third party trust to take fees from resellers for the OS licence with both CTL and ROL
2. Trust to distribute CTL’s agreed fees (would probably require CTL’s cooperation, as wording of agreement may need to state that fees to be paid by said trust on behalf of reseller)
3. Trust to also accumulate claimed agreed ROL fees, for possible payment if/when IPR situation clarified in their favour (clearly no intention to defraud ROL)
4. If IPR situation not clarified, an (agreed) portion of the accumulated claimed agreed ROL fees could be paid to ROL in exchange for them agreeing to tidy their code so that it could also be shared and merged with the CTL source – once the code is merged there could be a separate (new) agreement to pay ROL for each new merged OS shipped
5. In case of legal challenge, either pay ROL fees or use said fees to fight challenge
6. Any excess monies could be used to subsidise machine upgrades (Cortex-A15?) for early adopters

I think for a commercial entity this is all too complicated and unsafe.

I would propose the following: provide a Linux-based installer that downloads the necessary stuff from the ROOL site, so the “RISC OS” machine you sell does not have any RISC OS IPR inside, but only knowledge about the places it can download the necessary stuff. Basically, you are delegating the (potential) licence problem to the user – just like it is today, but in a more user-friendly and automated fashion.

Handled this way, you don’t need to worry about IPR infighting or licence difficulties or fees. All you need to worry about is that the consumer has internet access (or knows someone who has). And of course writing the Linux-based installer. If one of the target machines happens to not have a Linux distribution by default, it might get more difficult, but nowadays Linux seems to be universally available.

provide a Linux-based installer that downloads the necessary stuff from the ROOL site

That makes sense.

(There is nothing to stop RISC OS user groups helping members do the install.)

However, it would be nice if ROL could prepare a bundle of their improved modules and apps that worked with RO5 and were sold to a vendor with a carefully worded license for RISC OS on the desktop. (Worded so it would cover RO 5, but not actually claimng ownership on the desktop).

ROL and Castle would make some money, the users would get a better system.

[edit: thanks Trevor]

I think for a commercial entity this is all too complicated and unsafe.

Admittedly, it’s not an ideal solution – but the licensing issues aren’t going to go away by not tackling them. Without trying to do something about this, Pace is probably the only company with enough prior knowledge to venture into it… and I doubt they have the inclination.

…Linux-based installer…

I agree that’d work and is fine in the short term (AI could even be doing this now).

…knowledge about the places it can download the necessary stuff…

Or, in fact, just knowledge about a handful of URLs which redirect to the download files, future-proofing things a little.

The Linux-based installer would be convenient for existing users but crucially wouldn’t entice potential users to give the OS a “test drive”.

I believe that it’s in everyone’s interest to amicably resolve the licensing issues to reach a common goal of an increased user base. That way, all commercial RISC OS operations have a larger market. The fee itself would of course add to the retail price, but possibly only by 5-10% (more where numbers of sales are unpredictable and licences are bought in units of, say 100, meaning the total fees require recovering over a lesser number of units – in order that the reseller breaks even without having to take orders for the total number of licences paid for).

Now does anyone know the smilie for a flying pig?

Best not make too much of a habit of these pigs, though… I’m sure they’re not to everyone’s taste!

Not mine, I’m a vegetarian :) , but it should prevent anyone thinking I have any serious hope for what I suggested.

Coincidentally, I amwas too. And perhaps I’ll search for a few static pigs to insert in my post above.

[Edit: That was then. After a couple of decades off, I became a reverted omnivore in summer 2011! Sorry, pigs.]

Don’t panic, people, flying pigs have nothing to do with pigs being eaten.

I must admit I made the original suggestion (that we sort out the commercial issues) quite seriously. Aaron seems to think the commercial issues are resolved (see VA forum). Let’s hope that ROL will not want a huge fee and Castle (who?) won’t rock the boat.

I must admit I made the original suggestion (that we sort out the commercial issues) quite seriously.

I wasn’t doubting the suggestion.

I remember a time when Virtual Acorn was the spawn of satan, now they are firm friends with ROL. It is a shame the same hasn’t happened with Castle.

As I see the situation, there are products that ROL would have no dispute over; thin clients and STBs.

I think Steffen’s suggestion is the most sensible starting point, for products where there is a dispute.

Then the ball is in ROL’s court. (Is that the best phrase to use?)

What I think they would need to do is come up with some agreement where they can both make money, but neither gives ground on what they believe they own. (They can sort that out later). I think my suggestion would permit that.

I would propose the following: provide a Linux-based installer that downloads the necessary stuff from the ROOL site, so the “RISC OS” machine you sell does not have any RISC OS IPR inside, but only knowledge about the places it can download the necessary stuff. Basically, you are delegating the (potential) licence problem to the user – just like it is today, but in a more user-friendly and automated fashion.

I’m just wondering what problem we’re trying to solve, here… It’s not terribly difficult to get started with RISC OS on the BeagleBoard, is it? As far as I can tell, it comes down to downloading a couple of files (the OS and boot file), placing them on the SD card, and once you have the system up and running, you can transfer the HardDisc4 archive from a PC using a USB memory stick.

A Linux loader could simplify some of this stuff, which would be nice, but it seems to me that you wouldn’t save all that much compared to the current situation.

I would assume that setup of Cortex A9 hardware (at least the PandaBoard, which is the most obvious first target) would be rather similar.

Naturally, if someone wants to negotiate with ROOL and ROL to provide added functionality from the ROL version, they would be welcome to do that, but what I seem to miss in this discussion is a notion of who would be willing to do this kind of work, and for what reward (considering the size of the market, and how easy it is to get started without paying anything more than for the hardware)?

I must admit I made the original suggestion (that we sort out the commercial issues) quite seriously. Aaron seems to think the commercial issues are resolved (see VA forum).

Is this what you meant ? (Aaron yesterday)

• There was never anything to be resolved. We have been paying licence fees for the use of RISC OS for years. We pay to the company who purchased the rights to RISC OS in 1999. The same company who has subsequently developed and licenced RISC OS 4. We have no commercial dealings with Castle Technology Ltd who have ceased trading.

Is this what you meant ?

Anyway it’s good news that Castle have ceased trading

Castle might not be actually selling things right now but the company “Castle Technology Ltd” still exists. As I understand it the terms of any Castle licence for a commercial project containing OS5 are unclear.

Aaron seems to think the commercial issues are resolved (see VA forum)

There was a huge spat on usenet on just this not that long ago. There was no resolution, the assertion made remains just that, an untested assertion. The potential for dispute remains.

Steffen, above, has it right and that seems to be how this a4com Beagle kit is managed. Have ROL challenged it?

...that seems to be how this a4com Beagle kit is managed.

With a Linux installer? It states "RISC OS 5.17 Developerversion Beagleboard kompatible Freeware" which I thought meant it came supplied with the ROM image.

Have ROL challenged it?

That’s a good question for someone to ask at the South West show.

With a Linux installer? It states “RISC OS 5.17 Developerversion Beagleboard kompatible Freeware” which I thought meant it came supplied with the ROM image.

Do you mean this bit, “1GB microSDcard für RISC OS 5.17 ROM-Image”, which I took to mean a card for the ROM image not a card with the ROM image.

Do you mean this bit, “1GB microSDcard für RISC OS 5.17 ROM-Image”

No, the bit at the bottom.

which I took to mean a card for the ROM image not a card with the ROM image.

That’s what it sounds like. But who knows whether the ROM just happens to already be on the card for testing purposes (even if it’s included as a “blank card” for the ROM).

No, the bit at the bottom.

Oops, my mistake, looked right through that bit. Now that’s interesting.

I wonder if CTL have had many queries from STB manufacturers. This was cited as a reason not to adopt a GPL licence back in 2007.

I imagine that’s commercially sensitive information which CTL are unlikely to divulge.