Re: RISC OS Licencing : Facts not Fiction

Chris Hughes wrote:
In message <7uvm4qFq3aU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Steffen Huber <spam@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Chris Hughes wrote:
[snip]
Inbetween versions formed part of the Select scheme as it was then
providing Beta versions, before the stable release at 4.39 which
became the new base level.

Note these are actual facts.

Actually - no. I am very certain that Select was neither announced
nor promoted nor sold as a "beta scheme". Beta releases were intended
to be part of the Select scheme, but the final Select 1,2 and 3 releases
were most certainly release versions.

Then I suggest you goto:

http://www.riscos.com/select/index.htm

Where you read about it, amongst other things.

I have read it, and it confirms my viewpoint. E.g.:

"The CD will contain both Beta software and official release versions."

Please cite the passages that you think confirms your viewpoint.

The way I interpret the leaked part of the original licence, the
Select scheme was indeed in breach of this licence.

Since we do not have access to either the rest of the document or followup documents, you can't say that. Its your *opinion* only.

Does "the way I interpret it" not make it clear enough that I
am stating my opinion? And referring to "this licence" makes
it clear that I am indeed referring to "the leaked part of the
original licence", no?

Although I find it a bit strange to have so many references to
contemporary hardware technology in such a licence (like ROM,
CD-ROM, disk image etc.).

But of course we don't know for sure what happened after this
licence. The only thing we now really know for sure is that
Aaron's claims of RISC OS ownership are without merit. At least
according to the very document he provided to "prove" it.

You have just contradicted yourself, saying we know for sure Aaron's claims are false and then admitting above we don't have any of the follow up documents !

Is my English really that bad? According to the document Aaron has
made publically available, his original claims are clearly
false. This is it that we know for sure. And it is independent
of the fact that there may or may not be further documents
to consider.

Steffen

--
Steffen Huber
hubersn Software - http://www.hubersn-software.com/
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: RISC OS Licencing : Facts not Fiction
    ... nor promoted nor sold as a "beta scheme". ... Select was always promoted as beta test program, there were frequent warnings that components were not of release quality, and there may be problems, in which case the!Configure softload plug-in allowed you to fall back to a previous Select version or the ROM based 4.02. ... At that point in time ROL may have slightly bent the licence, but did not seem they were out to break it. ...
    (comp.sys.acorn.misc)
  • Re: RISC OS Licencing : Facts not Fiction
    ... providing Beta versions, before the stable release at 4.39 which became the new base level. ... Note these are actual facts. ... nor promoted nor sold as a "beta scheme". ... Select scheme was indeed in breach of this licence. ...
    (comp.sys.acorn.misc)
  • Re: RISC OS Licencing : Facts not Fiction
    ... became the new base level. ... nor promoted nor sold as a "beta scheme". ... Select scheme was indeed in breach of this licence. ...
    (comp.sys.acorn.misc)
  • Re: Mounting an external HFS drive
    ... Cnwintsall.msi is the install program ... The Beta version will work for Mac MFS+, but you may require the 30 ... licence to enable it. ...
    (comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage)
  • Latest Windows Update broke my VS2005 Beta
    ... Latest Windows Update broke my VS2005 Beta. ... I cannot uninstall, repair, ... I am ready to buy a licence but in Italy it isn't available yet. ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.general)