Uncertainty remains over RISC OS commercial licensing

From RISC OS

Viewed 2131 times, With a total of 2 Posts
Jump to: navigation, search


Threads 37
Posts 92
The Castle Technology Ltd. website has recently been observed to redirect to its Commercial Licence page, which has been availble for some months and simply states:
Commercial Licence details for RISC OS to follow shortly
It appears that the familiar home page is no more. Note that the source code licence page and Iyonix website appear unaffected. Of course, RISCOS Ltd. has also previously claimed ownership and offers licensing (2002 brochure). But recent promotion of its commercial licensing appears to be absent from its website.


At the recent Wakefield Show, RISC OS Open Ltd. stated:
"We are stewards of the project. We need someone like Chris Evans to come along and packag...
With the current uncertainty surrounding licensing arrangements, the sale of new commercial RISC OS products remains unlikely in the short term. In the mean time, users can obviously continue to download the ROM image themselves and install on new hardware (notwithstanding ROL's position regarding ownership of RISC OS).
Edited On 4:22:26 PM - Fri, May 21st 2010 by Pnaulls


Threads 0
Posts 8

Interesting article, thanks for posting it. One thing that amused me is the way you say "With the current uncertainty surrounding licensing arrangements, the sale of new commercial RISC OS products remains unlikely in the short term." - I think there are many other, probably better, reasons why new comercial products are unlikey but of course I agree that any licence uncertainty does not help.

Can someone answer why this has been going on for so long and why is it still not sorted? What do people think are the best ways forward on this issue?



Threads 37
Posts 92

Quote:Polas 14:03 22nd May 2010
...I think there are many other, probably better, reasons why new comercial products are unlikey...

I wouldn't describe such other reasons as "better" but maybe "more immediate", "more problematic" or similar.

Quote:
Can someone answer why this has been going on for so long and why is it still not sorted? What do people think are the best ways forward on this issue?

There's already been more than enough previous public discussion/debate regarding this. AIUI it's still not sorted because various parties do not agree on the integrity of various documents. However, I'm personally not overly well informed on this. Best ways forward? Anyone's guess.








AWC's: 2.4.1 MediaWiki - Stand Alone Forum Extension
Views
Personal tools
Toolbox