RiscOS 4,5&6 owners and licensing confusion.

Hi,

Sorry if this is obvious to everyone else but I’m confused by the current status of Risc OS forks, if that’s whet they are.

Could someone explain to me who owns the rights to Risc OS 4, 5 and 6 (and any other versions), or the ownership structure. In the past I as put off using and developing as the subscription for Risc OS 6 was far too expensive. I have now found this site and realised that there seems to be more than one fork of Risc OS, with different pricing and structures.

While I understand that any derivative work I do on the shared sources of OS 5 could result in my code being incorporated into Risc OS 5 and licensed for profit by Castle Technology Ltd, will the code also be used by Risc OS Ltd for 6 and licensed by subscription?

Who owns the rights to Risc OS 4 and are there any other forks?

If I do voluntary coding that gets absorbed into Risc OS 5 then Castle sell the rights to Risc OS I could end up in a situation where I wouldn’t be able to license code that I had written for a future commercial project.

These unknowns are putting me (and probably many other potential users) off getting involved with Risc OS again after a long absence.

Regards,
Geoff

There are two forks: RISC OS 5, vs RISC OS 4/6. Castle Technology (CTL) runs the RISC OS 5 fork and RISCOS Ltd (ROL) runs the 4/6 fork. The only reason there are two version numbers in the ROL fork is that they (arbitrarily) decided to up-version their branch of the OS from 4 to 6, presumably to make it sound new and better than RO5. In reality, development has been on-going on both forks, it’s just that attention has focused in different areas.

The shared source licence for RO5 does indeed mean CTL could sell your contributions for profit. However, there’s no reason why you cannot add components under a different licence (such as BSD or CDDL) – you cannot use GPL because it is fundamentally incompatible with the CTL licence. However, if you’re changing/working on existing bits of the OS, then of course they will stay under whatever licence they currently have.

There is currently no mechanism by which changes in either fork are fed back and forth. They have always been independent of each other and that’s how they will (unfortunately) stay for the foreseeable future. It does feel like development of the RO4/6 fork has rather ground to a halt in recent years – I’ve not seen an awful lot of activity going on but I could be wrong. ROOL don’t really have any exposure to what ROL are up to so that’s just an outsider’s view.

I’ve just been reading a bit of the history online. Wow, how things get complicated. RO4/6 seems dead in the water but while ROL are about as a company waiting to pounce on any commercial computer success it looks like it’s too much of a minefield.

Are Castle still making good money from set-top-box licensing?
Are RISCOS still making good money from subscriptions?

It looks like there could still be other old licensing claims out there too, but not from any companies that seem to exist any more.

Anyone want to “Kickstarter” a buy-out of both Castle Technology and RiscOS Ltd’s claims on IP and licenses and allow ROOL to take over directing an open source Risc OS. It’s probably RO’s last chance to grab a big bite of the emerging BB and R-Pi type market before everyone settles on less efficient linux. Maybe the last chance to get hundreds/thousands of new developers on-board.

By the time BB2 and R-Pi2 are out linux will be established as the default OS and RO without new hardware is just going to slowly fade away.

Does anyone have anything to add that might make me feel a bit more positive about RO’s future?

“Feel more positive about RISC OS future”? How about more progress in the last year or so than in the last 5+? More new hardware? Real ARM-based RISC OS machines available again, with properly licenced OSs? Its more rosy now than for as long as I can remember! Heck, even software development has restarted!

I’d say RISC OS looks better now that it has for years, simply because it runs on commonly available hardware. There are still lots of issues like no good web browser, no proper multi-tasking etc. but those are the same problems we’ve had for 10 years.

Hi Andrew,

I wasn’t trying to be rude. I don’t know if I made it clear that I’m considering returning to RISC after many years tinkering with software and developing new hardware for obscure older computer systems, Nascom, transam, Osborne, even the more mainstream BBC B, and now want to get involved with something more modern with more longevity, so aren’t up to date on how things have been for the last few years.

I’m very glad that recent events have shown an increased interest in RO and hope it goes from strength to strength. My words; “that might make me feel a bit more positive” were merely an indication of my personal frustration that issues causing problems and stilted development many years ago are still around. I also understand that some improvements, like pre-emptive multi-tasking, will involve a massive change and probable implementation of a compatibility mode so as not to break older software, and can only happen with more developers involved. My concerns about the future of RISC are from the point of view of someone who wants it go grow and succeed.

I was not aware that I could buy a “Real ARM-based RISC OS machines available again, with properly licenced OS”, I certainly didn’t see anything in the first few pages of the news section here. I’m currently running an emulator as I don’t have the space to set up another system here at the moment. Although that will change as I’ll be ebaying approximately 80 pre-1990s computer systems in the near future.

I’ve been using RISC on and off since the first Archimedes, and following ARM’s progress since long before they were ARM. If an ARM/RO mobile phone was available, I’d own one. The increased availability of ARM hardware in the hobbyist market in recent years is bring RO back into people’s minds. Getting RO back into schools would really raise it’s profile. After all what’s the point of having the latest ARM processor then slowing it down with a bloated linux install.

Back to my “open source” comment; I don’t mind working for free, but I’m not so keen on doing it when someone else then charges for my work. I’d be happy to see the shared source model a success but I’m not yet convinced.

The “real ARM-based RISC OS machine” Andrew was modestly omitting to mention is his own ARMini.

Agreed that the current RO licensing situation is crazy and counterproductive – Andrew had to buy licences from both ROOL and ROL in order to sell RISC OS, just as a safeguard, in spite of the fact that ROL have contributed nothing.

Crowdfunding a buy-out is certainly an interesting idea. Perhaps it could be worth a shot? I’d advise against using Kickstarter as they’re not UK-based, but the model has been proven successful in the past. As long as somebody can think up some suitable incentives (and, of course, ROL and Castle can name a price), we might be pleasantly surprised how many people contribute.

I was not aware that I could buy a “Real ARM-based RISC OS machines available again, with properly licenced OS”

You can: it’s an ARMini, from R-Comp (Andrew Rawnsley). Or, for considerably less money but considerably more work, you can buy a BeagleBoard (preferably the xM) and the other bits you need/want, and get the OS legally for free from this site. Take the choive that suits you.

Back to my “open source” comment; I don’t mind working for free, but I’m not so keen on doing it when someone else then charges for my work. I’d be happy to see the shared source model a success but I’m not yet convinced.

My POV is that we benefit from having some professionals involved; as professionals, they have to earn their money somehow. I’m aware that R-Comp are making some money out of my efforts, for example (although my efforts pale into insignificance against Jeffrey Lee’s). But I think we have to have a sense of give and take. In the end those efforts are mutually beneficial. Please don’t think like an accountant: they know the cost of everything, and the value of nothing.

Look at what has been achieved since RISC OS was released under the Shared Source licence. Progress like this was unthinkable before.

Look at it another way. If you get involved, it will save you from having to watch television every evening. :-)

As for the fork: most people are simply ignoring ROL. I suggest you do the same.

Which reminds me Dave, let me know if there are any software updates or bits and bobs I can help you with (smile)!

I really wouldn’t worry about ROL. I understand that searching for info might cause you concern, but the rest of us who have stuck it out or returned to RISC OS, all know that there’s absolutely no future with ROL. We’re honestly barely sure there’s any activity right now. No, I think it’s reasonable to say that almost the entire RISC OS scene have gathered around ROOL’s efforts. We’re finally seeing RISC OS on brand new hardware and I don’t think I’ve seen this much interest in the OS in many years. There is a future and it’s right here and it’s finally exciting again.

Crowdfunding […] I’d advise against using Kickstarter as they’re not UK-based

Maybe some of these are more UK/Europe.

Please don’t think like an accountant

OT: Sounds like Skyclad’s question, "How can you know the cost of everything yet never see its worth?"

most people are simply ignoring ROL

really wouldn’t worry about ROL

There might remain the (faint) possibility of reconciliation, licensing harmony and incorporating some code changes…