Re: Unified OS

On 27 Feb 2006, Steven Pampling wrote:
In article <gemini.ivd28o000rvru01v8.spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
VinceH <spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

[...]

The odd snippet from the licence is meaningless unless you are
able to see it in its full context,

Actually I think he's carefully avoided quoting anything so
there isn't any context.

Indeed. I was misremembering the article with message-id
<1141038132.620616.44220@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> in Aaron
made reference to a specific section of the licence, describing
what that section does ("restricts the activities of the head
licence holder quite dramatically") without quoting it or going
into any detail.

In which case, "the odd comment about or reference to the licence
is meaningless unless you are able to see precisely what is being
commented on or referenced in full and in its full context".

I'm afraid the only things that have been said are so vague as
to be meaningless

Indeed.

For all anyone reading this knows, the restrictions mentioned
above could be that they aren't allowed to eat tinned potatoes on
a Tuesday unless they are accompanied by treacle tart, if they
have been working with RISC OS in the seven prior days. I'm
reasonably sure they aren't, but I don't know that for certain.

- other than the information that (quite logically) Castle have
a copy of the documentation relating to the ROL licence as well
as a copy of that licence. They know what is in it and they
maintain that ROL are in breach of it. Needless to say ROL
maintain otherwise.

Quite - which, if anything, supports my point that comments from
individuals who have the licence in question shouldn't be relied
on, if for a different reason; we can be reasonably sure that
Castle have consulted with their expensive suits, as have RISC OS
Ltd. If they both maintain their positions, then we can't say "Oh
well, Aaron hints at this, that or the other, so we should take it
as read that that is the case."

[...]

VinceH
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Unified OS
    ... spinning faster than something spinning very fast indeed. ... able to see it in its full context, ... a copy of the documentation relating to the ROL licence as well as a copy ...
    (comp.sys.acorn.misc)
  • Re: RISC OS Licencing : Facts not Fiction
    ... obligations under the licence, this would not have granted ROL any rights ... over RISC OS 3.8. ... The Iyonix PC was not a desktop computer created by E14. ...
    (comp.sys.acorn.misc)
  • Re: RISC OS source code release news
    ... of ROLs head licence open in front of me as I type this. ... Is that the same copy as the one which Paul Middleton in the ROL 2001 annual ... stated expressly prohibited the use of RISC OS in emulators? ... allow the licencing of RISC OS on an emulator. ...
    (comp.sys.acorn.misc)
  • Re: RISC OS Licencing : Facts not Fiction
    ... Further suppose the licence had indeed been breached by the sale of the Iyonix within the four year window. ... Since in this hypothetical situation we are to confine ourselves to just the ROL 'leak' document, then there are no other documents granting any parties any other rights or exceptions. ... So we're hypothesising that the old licence is valid, ROL are compliant and the release of the Iyonix violated it. ... What happens to ROL's rights with regards to RISC OS components they had not modified, or RISC OS components they had modified? ...
    (comp.sys.acorn.misc)
  • Re: Help with rights holders
    ... dispute is with CTL, not ROOL. ... former), so without proof, or perhaps the assurance that ROL ... them a licence. ... I don't recall him saying that was backed up with anything ...
    (comp.sys.acorn.misc)