log in | register | forums
Show:
Go:
Forums
Username:

Password:

User accounts
Register new account
Forgot password
Forum stats
List of members
Search the forums

Advanced search
Recent discussions
- Wakefield Show 2021 Preview (News:2)
- April update for Iris browser (News:5)
- FrogFind - seems to make the www a little more old school ! (Gen:1)
- RISC OS interview with Chris Johnson (News:)
- Reminder to set your clocks for Rougol talk on monday night (News:)
- March News Round-up (News:)
- RISC OS Developments updates Iris (News:4)
- Git comes to RISC OS (News:1)
- Daryl Dudey talks about Graphics Programming Using DARIC (News:)
- Daryl Dudey ROUGOL interview on monday (News:2)
Related articles
- RISC OS South West Show 2005
- Wakefield 2003 - the preview
- The state of PackMan in 2018
- RISC OS 5.20 released, free Portsmouth show in planning
- Newsround
- Newsround
- RISC OS on The Register
- Rounding Up February
- News from Wakefield [Updated]
- Wakefield Show Theatre Programme
Latest postings RSS Feeds
RSS 2.0 | 1.0 | 0.9
Atom 0.3
Misc RDF | CDF
Site Search
 
Article archives
The Icon Bar: News and features: What is the point of RISCOS Ltd?
 

What is the point of RISCOS Ltd?

Posted by Jeffrey Lee on 19:00, 7/11/2009 | , , , , , , , ,
 
What is the point of RISCOS Ltd?After hearing the news that videos from the recent RISC OS London Show are now available online, I decided to take a look at what RISCOS Ltd had to say in their presentation. The results I found to be quite shocking...
 
Disclaimer: Although I've obviously been doing a lot of work for RISC OS Open recently, I am not a member of ROOL, nor am I speaking on behalf of ROOL (or The Icon Bar). The opinions expressed below are mine and mine alone, and any likeness or resemblence to any other person's opinions is entirely coincidental.
 

 
Firstly, despite the concerns of a couple of the more "distant" members of the TIB staff, it looks like ROL are still alive and are still running the Select scheme. Rather unsurprisingly, they say (at 16:25) that their cashflow isn't stable enough for them to commit to any timetable/roadmap for what's going into future releases. They also cite (at around 23:40) commercial confidentiality reasons for not being able to announce the Vpod-related graphics improvements ahead of time. All fair enough so far.
 
But then, at 38:50, when he talks about the lack of RISC OS 6 on the A9home, ROL big-wig Paul Middleton gives a rather shocking answer:
"The A9home, one of the problems there is simply, it's hit the point where things have got to be done, we just don't have the people who have got the skills to actually solve the problem."
And at 40:10:
"All we can practically do is the areas that we've got people that have got interest in. And I think you can probably guess, the areas that people have got an interest in are [...] graphics"
I.e. even though subscribing to the RISC OS Select scheme means that you'll be funding the development of RISC OS, there's no system in place to ensure that the money is being spent on areas that actually need development. If they come across a problem that's too complex for their skill set, or involves working on an area that doesn't hold any interest to the programmer in question, they'll just ignore it. Basically ROL have no direction and no commitments. They say that in the past they've always been sub-contracted to work on things (Omega, A9home, Vpod), but without an external company to give them a goal and a source of funding they're content with just sitting there free-wheeling and soaking up the cash of the Select scheme subscribers.
 
At least Castle were smart enough to realise that they didn't have enough money left to fund the development of the OS, and as a result they open(ish)-sourced it to allow the remaining desktop users to look after it themselves.
 
In fact, what is the point of ROL if they don't have any developers who are working on the code full-time?
 
They can't claim that the money from the Select scheme is putting food on the table of any of their employees (43:25 - "We don't have any programmers whose full time job is doing RISC OS"). And they can't claim that they're using the money to fix any of the real issues with the OS. They can't even claim that they're using it to improve the desktop experience, because they don't produce any roadmaps detailing what they're working on for the next version. Even after a release has been made there's no guarantee that they'll disclose any useful information as to what's changed (see the Select 5i2 changelist, for example). They're just using their subscribers money to provide an extra bit of income to fund the whims of the developers.
 
One thing is now clear to me - with Castle effectively dead and ROL lacking direction, the long-term future of the OS has been left entirely in the hands of its users. We've therefore got to ask ourselves how we want to proceed:

Continue as things are now

The ROOL supporters will continue to support ROOL, and the ROL supporters will continue to support ROL, even though neither can presently guarantee the long-term future of the OS. In the end one side will come out on top, but there's no telling how long that will take or how much the market will shrink in the meantime.

Convince ROL to work on the ROOL codebase

This would be a hard sell for ROL, as it would effectively involve them abandoning the last 10 years of their work. Their pride may also be a problem - could they bring themselves to work on "the enemy"'s code?
 
And also, if the ROL developers were to suddenly start getting paid to work on the ROOL codebase, how would the people currently doing work for free react? Would ROOL possibly lose momentum rather than gain it?

Convince ROOL to work on the ROL codebase

Of course convincing ROOL themselves to work on the ROL code is probably impossible, but if all the ROOL supporters were to throw their time and money at ROL, what would happen? Would ROL gain the funding and skill they need to rescue the OS, or would they still lack the determination and direction that's preventing them from getting RISC OS 6 working on the A9home? Or is there simply not enough money left in the market to guarantee the success of a commercial branch of the OS? (The last time ROL tried asking for money, for the Select on Iyonix scheme, they fell far short of the target they believed they needed to reach for the venture to be commercially viable, and thus the project was scrapped).
 
And there's also the question of how many ROOL supporters could be convinced to support ROL in the first place, considering ROL's current lack of direction, and the fact that ROOL are so close to having the full OS source released under the shared source license.
 
To mis-quote Paul Middleton (at 33:05, when he's talking about the open/shared source threat): "If you're doing a job, and you've got the skill to do it, you should get paid for it" - which is exactly why I'm not paying ROL, because they're not doing the job!

Links


 
  What is the point of RISCOS Ltd?
  This is a long thread. Click here to view the threaded list.
 
Martin Bazley Message #112127, posted by swirlythingy at 16:18, 2/12/2009, in reply to message #112125

Posts: 460
I tend to work on a three-number system - that is, whenever I release a new version of something, I increment one of the three digits of the version number according to how different the new version is to the previous one.

The only problem with that is that if you have too many concurrent minor releases you run out of numbers and are practically forced to make a major update! smile
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Gunnlaugur Jonsson Message #112137, posted by Gulli at 00:34, 6/12/2009, in reply to message #112118
Member
Posts: 138

Queue Peter Naulls and others that have strongly objected to this for various (mostly technical) reasons smile
No, not really. You didn't provide any references to such arguments, and I think you've rather misstated what has been argued for.
You are right, your objections were not because of technical issues. My apologies - I simply remembered incorrectly.

And just because someone repeatedly argues for such things doesn't mean (a) the argument is cohesive (b) the person in question is offering to do any work themselves (c) the solution makes any kind of financial or practical sense (quite apart from technical considerations).
Most of these discussions/arguments were before offering to do any work was even an option since RISC OS had not been "shared sourced" at the time.
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Tony Lizard Message #112178, posted by Mr Lizard at 20:19, 9/12/2009, in reply to message #111899
Member
Posts: 24
RISCOS Ltd's accounts for the year ending 31st January 2009 are now available for the public to view.

Naturally, things haven't improved - they've continued to deteriorate. And that's based on figures that are already nearly a year out of date!

In case anyone fancies a butcher's: http://www.riscos.info/downloads/documents/ROL/

[Edited by Mr Lizard at 22:04, 9/12/2009]
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Peter Naulls Message #112179, posted by pnaulls at 20:44, 9/12/2009, in reply to message #112178
Member
Posts: 317
http://www.riscos.info/downloads/documents/ROL/

I renamed them, since spaces in filenames in non-local documents aren't always friendly. If I feel bored, I'll do a story too.
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Daniel Nesbitt Message #112180, posted by solsburian at 20:46, 9/12/2009, in reply to message #112178
Member
Posts: 23
I think they were also posted a week late as well.
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Tony Lizard Message #112184, posted by Mr Lizard at 22:04, 9/12/2009, in reply to message #112179
Member
Posts: 24
Great - thanks Peter
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
VinceH Message #112185, posted by VincceH at 22:59, 9/12/2009, in reply to message #112179
VincceH
Lowering the tone since the dawn of time

Posts: 1600
http://www.riscos.info/downloads/documents/ROL/
As before, being abbreviated accounts, they aren't presenting us with the full picture, so a lot of reading between the lines is necessary - but the first word that springs to mind is "interesting".

The main impression that balance sheet gives is that RISCOS Ltd is surviving on increased credit - anyone with a keen eye should be able to spot that; you don't need my 20+ years in accounts1 to see what I see.

It's most likely that it's just run of the mill trade creditors - a lot of purchasing both increasing the creditors figure and contributing to the loss. On it's own, I'd be inclined to say it's the sign of a struggling business - sales may be down (and direct costs should be similarly down) but overheads remain reasonably consistent - and a profit in one year becomes a smaller profit in another year (a couple of hundred in 2008 ), becomes a loss in the next.

However, the company's trading has seen the bank balance increase - and that's important. Vital, even. Not only that, but they saw fit to spend £4K on fixed assets. I'd almost be inclined to think that some work was going on; the loss (and creditors increase) might have been subcontract developers, perhaps - but that doesn't quite work for a couple of reasons:

Firstly, has anything significant (or which looks like it must have involved a significant amount of work - so a MAJOR update to Select, for example) been released or announced by RISCOS Ltd between 31st January and now?

Secondly, if that was the case, then there should be a work in progress figure on that balance sheet, offsetting the costs involved from that year (and reducing the loss) into the next. This would be shown along with stock - and the stock figure has actually decreased slightly2.

So, despite the appearance and the sort of things we might attempt to guess at from these accounts, the picture still has too many holes in to be able to say anything truly meaningful. Everything I've said above is based on guesswork and assumptions, and has any number of ifs and buts attached, whether I've mentioned them or not.

So all I can do is revise my first word upon looking at them: Rather than "interesting", make it "intriguing".

One thing I will add is that because I earn my daily crust from accounts, I hate that sort of work with a vengeance - so the following is something I never thought I'd say about ANY company:

I'd love to get my teeth into RISCOS Ltd's accounts to see what's really going on!

1 That's actually a more detailed response to Peter's comment 111938 than I gave in my original reply, comment 111939.

2 The lack of a WIP figure proves nothing, mind - that could just as easily be down to someone not realising they should have worked it out and included it. It happens.
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Peter Howkins Message #112189, posted by flibble at 11:26, 10/12/2009, in reply to message #112185
flibble

Posts: 878
From my reading of the accounts from 2000 onwards (earlier ones sent to teh Naulls for uploading onto riscos.info) ROL raised 130k from shareholders, lost 72k of it in the first year, and have gained about another 20k from shareholders and have slowly frittered it away all the 150k over the decade.

Also, I don't think ROL has ever been classed or intended to be a 'not for profit', it just never has made a profit.
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
VinceH Message #112190, posted by VincceH at 13:43, 10/12/2009, in reply to message #112189
VincceH
Lowering the tone since the dawn of time

Posts: 1600
From my reading of the accounts from 2000 onwards (earlier ones sent to teh Naulls for uploading onto riscos.info) ROL raised 130k from shareholders, lost 72k of it in the first year, and have gained about another 20k from shareholders and have slowly frittered it away all the 150k over the decade.
They will be interesting reading, then. Earlier sets will likely contain more information than the last couple of sets. However, what they will tell us is largely historical. The more recent sets, obviously, present the more recent picture - but in a very incomplete way due to them being abbreviated accounts.

A nice juicy annual report is always more interesting, but even then there has to be much reading between the lines (and therefore guesswork) because they are usually full of positive spin.

Also, I don't think ROL has ever been classed or intended to be a 'not for profit', it just never has made a profit.
Who said they were?
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Jeffrey Lee Message #112191, posted by Phlamethrower at 14:13, 10/12/2009, in reply to message #112190
PhlamethrowerHot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot stuff

Posts: 15095
Also, I don't think ROL has ever been classed or intended to be a 'not for profit', it just never has made a profit.
Who said they were?
There's a discussion about that on the first page of the comments, from hereish onwards.
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
VinceH Message #112193, posted by VincceH at 15:45, 10/12/2009, in reply to message #112191
VincceH
Lowering the tone since the dawn of time

Posts: 1600
Also, I don't think ROL has ever been classed or intended to be a 'not for profit', it just never has made a profit.
Who said they were?
There's a discussion about that on the first page of the comments, from hereish onwards.
Oh yeah. But that was, like, a month ago. How is anyone supposed to remember that far back? tongue
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Peter Howkins Message #112194, posted by flibble at 16:13, 10/12/2009, in reply to message #112190
flibble

Posts: 878
They will be interesting reading, then. Earlier sets will likely contain more information than the last couple of sets. However, what they will tell us is largely historical. The more recent sets, obviously, present the more recent picture - but in a very incomplete way due to them being abbreviated accounts.
Now uploaded, 3 annual reports and 2 more abbreviated accounts.

http://www.riscos.info/downloads/documents/ROL/
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Peter Howkins Message #112201, posted by flibble at 11:32, 11/12/2009, in reply to message #112194
flibble

Posts: 878
Thank you Paul for you email, if you believe I'm infringing on Companies House's Copyright, please feel free to contact them and I will discuss it directly with them.

Peter

[Edited by flibble at 11:33, 11/12/2009]
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Trevor Johnson Message #112202, posted by trevj at 12:27, 11/12/2009, in reply to message #112201
Member
Posts: 660
...Companies House's Copyright...
"You know that certain company information lies within the public domain..."
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Peter Howkins Message #112203, posted by flibble at 12:40, 11/12/2009, in reply to message #112202
flibble

Posts: 878
...Companies House's Copyright...
"You know that certain company information lies within the public domain..."
Yes I'm aware of that, and those that aren't in the public domain have Crown Copyright with a

"may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium provided it is reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context"

But hey, it's not like you need to know that to send an unpleasant email.
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Edward Rogers Message #112205, posted by Monty at 14:10, 11/12/2009, in reply to message #112203
Member
Posts: 154
There's nowt like an unpleasant e-mail for winning over the community. I think your being very good in not publishing it here. If its as ludicrous a claim as you suggest, the temptation must be great. Not that I'm hinting or anything.

[Edited by Monty at 14:10, 11/12/2009]
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Jason Togneri Message #112206, posted by filecore at 14:21, 11/12/2009, in reply to message #112205

Posts: 3867
It seems to be another case of "don't expose our stupidity/corruption/ignorance/fraud* or we'll get all upset and threaten you". In such a small - need I say, almost cliqueish - field as RISC OS, this is a sad and discouraging turn of events.

*delete as appropriate
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Edward Rogers Message #112207, posted by Monty at 14:31, 11/12/2009, in reply to message #112206
Member
Posts: 154
Well, hardly discouraging.

By now I think it's the established norm.
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Trevor Johnson Message #112208, posted by trevj at 15:18, 11/12/2009, in reply to message #112203
Member
Posts: 660
Yes I'm aware of that, and those that aren't in the public domain have Crown Copyright with a

"may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium provided it is reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context"

But hey, it's not like you need to know that to send an unpleasant email.
Yes, I thought you knew. I posted just to save further discussion by those who may not have been aware. As for Crown copyright, I'm surprised to learn there are RISC OS documents subject to this.
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Peter Naulls Message #112209, posted by pnaulls at 15:56, 11/12/2009, in reply to message #112208
Member
Posts: 317

Yes, I thought you knew. I posted just to save further discussion by those who may not have been aware. As for Crown copyright, I'm surprised to learn there are RISC OS documents subject to this.
Well, I have no intention of breaking any rules, and I too have a note from PM, but I've been unable to verify his claims, and have read the various bits on the CH site, but the exact situation is not entirely clear to me.

AIUI, CH makes such documents readily available for public consideration, and does not prohibit their further distribution except to ensure recognition of their copyright (which I'll shortly rectify).

VinceH: do you care to opine on this matter?
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Andrew Duffell Message #112215, posted by ad at 17:32, 11/12/2009, in reply to message #112209
ad

Posts: 3251
Anyone care to submit the files to wikileaks?
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Chris Williams Message #112216, posted by diodesign at 17:36, 11/12/2009, in reply to message #112205
diodesign
The Opposition

Posts: 269
There's nowt like an unpleasant e-mail for winning over the community.
I understand Paul also asked for a public apology from all those involved. You've been very naughty boys.
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Andrew Poole Message #112217, posted by andypoole at 17:37, 11/12/2009, in reply to message #112215

Posts: 5552
Anyone care to submit the files to wikileaks?
Why? They're not exactly "leaks". They're public documents. Anyone can get them from Companies House for a quid if they wanted.

Andy.
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
VinceH Message #112218, posted by VincceH at 18:12, 11/12/2009, in reply to message #112209
VincceH
Lowering the tone since the dawn of time

Posts: 1600
VinceH: do you care to opine on this matter?
I certainly do. I'm a little too busy to spend any time checking at the moment - and this isn't something I've already specifically checked for any reason in the past - but OTTOMH I don't believe there actually is a copyright issue here.

The simple fact is all of these documents are already easily available from the Companies House website. There is a nominal fee - and it really is a nominal fee - to download them, but that charge isn't for the purposes of making money, it's merely an administrative charge. A whopping £1 per document.

As you and I and probably most people reading this forum know (and simplifying things considerably) while copyright covers any 'created' work, the real purpose is to protect the creator's revenue stream - and that clearly isn't an issue here.

So, IMO, there is no real copyright issue here. The accounts for limited companies are documents that by their very nature are public documents.

But that is just an opinion, and not something I've checked.
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
VinceH Message #112221, posted by VincceH at 18:33, 11/12/2009, in reply to message #112218
VincceH
Lowering the tone since the dawn of time

Posts: 1600
As you and I and probably most people reading this forum know (and simplifying things considerably) while copyright covers any 'created' work, the real purpose is to protect the creator's revenue stream - and that clearly isn't an issue here.
As an afterthought, I wonder if Paul's objections could be seen as an indication that the accounts are actually a work of fiction? They'd definitely be copyright material then. tongue
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Tony Lizard Message #112222, posted by Mr Lizard at 18:40, 11/12/2009, in reply to message #112201
Member
Posts: 24
Oh dear. I've just visited the site to see all this. I presume Paul Middleton has been contacting people, stamping his feet and threatening to hold his breath until he goes blue.

RISCOS Ltd's published accounts are a matter of public record. No-one's going to be sued. They're for everyone to view; for the benefit of everyone.

If Paul is so ashamed and embarrassed by his performance and the performance of his company that he can't cope with people reading the public accounts (which are only of limited use as it is), it speaks volumes.

Paul Middleton: Since you're clearly reading this thread, how about contributing? What are your plans for RISCOS Ltd? When are you going to put the company out of its misery? Specifically, what are your intentions for the code?
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
VinceH Message #112223, posted by VincceH at 19:10, 11/12/2009, in reply to message #112218
VincceH
Lowering the tone since the dawn of time

Posts: 1600
I'm a little too busy to spend any time checking at the moment
And I then put everything to one side to take a brief look. AFAICS, there is no clear and definite answer - I can see nothing anywhere that specifically declares copyright on accounts (as being Crown Copyright, the copyright of the companies that produce them, or anything else) - noting that Paul apparently claimed it was Companies House copyright being infringed, I would assume he believes them to be Crown Copyright; my best guess would be to agree.

And if that's the case, then publishing them on riscos.info (with appropriate attributions - which Peter has said he'll rectify) is perfectly fine.

And a few minutes later, I've made two telephone calls: the first was to Companies House - I figured why not just ask? Unfortunately, though, it's a bit late. The second was to a (qualified - something I'm not) accountant I know. His opinion matches mine. If I remember on Monday, I'll try that call to Companies House again. (Specifics aren't needed, just "I'm intending to write an article and publish it online about a company, and I'd like to publish their accounts alongside the article to support it - but I'm unsure about the copyright status. Can you clarify?")

I would suggest that if Paul definitely does believe CoHouse copyright is being infringed here, then perhaps he can point to where this is definitely clarified/confirmed on their website. Otherwise, I think he's just kneejerking to the accounts being published.

Edit: I've just thought of one other place it might be easily clarified - any Ts&Cs presented when information such as accounts are obtained from the site. We have some gaps, I believe? I'll pop back to their site now and buy those needed to fill the gaps, and look out for those Ts&Cs.


[Edited by VincceH at 19:11, 11/12/2009]
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Eric Rucker Message #112225, posted by bhtooefr at 19:18, 11/12/2009, in reply to message #112217
Member
Posts: 337
Streisand effect. That's why.

Anyway, I know they're in no danger, but rehosted on my server anyway: http://bhtooefr.ath.cx/files/ROL/
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
VinceH Message #112226, posted by VincceH at 19:33, 11/12/2009, in reply to message #112223
VincceH
Lowering the tone since the dawn of time

Posts: 1600
Edit: I've just thought of one other place it might be easily clarified - any Ts&Cs presented when information such as accounts are obtained from the site. We have some gaps, I believe? I'll pop back to their site now and buy those needed to fill the gaps, and look out for those Ts&Cs.
We do now have an answer. From the Ts&Cs presented when ordering (before paying for) the documents:

4. Use of the Products
======================

You can copy the Ordered Product only as permitted by Section 47 of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 as amended from time to time.

Companies House shall not be responsible for your use of the Ordered Product. You shall be responsible for complying with any applicable data protection, copyright and other legislation and regulations.
That section of the act states:

Material open to public inspection or on official register

(1) Where material is open to public inspection pursuant to a statutory requirement, or is on a statutory register, any copyright in the material as a literary work is not infringed by the copying of so much of the material as contains factual information of any description, by or with the authority of the appropriate person, for a purpose which does not involve the issuing of copies to the public.

(2) Where material is open to public inspection pursuant to a statutory requirement, copyright is not infringed by the copying or issuing to the public of copies of the material, by or with the authority of the appropriate person, for the purpose of enabling the material to be inspected at a more convenient time or place or otherwise facilitating the exercise of any right for the purpose of which the requirement is imposed.

(3) Where material which is open to public inspection pursuant to a statutory requirement, or which is on a statutory register, contains information about matters of general scientific, technical, commercial or economic interest, copyright is not infringed by the copying or issuing to the public of copies of the material, by or with the authority of the appropriate person, for the purpose of disseminating that information.

(4) The Secretary of State may by order provide that subsection (1), (2) or (3) shall, in such cases as may be specified in the order, apply only to copies marked in such manner as may be so specified.

(5) The Secretary of State may by order provide that subsections (1) to (3) apply, to such extent and with such modifications as may be specified in the order—

(a) to material made open to public inspection by—

(i) an international organisation specified in the order, or

(ii) a person so specified who has functions in the United Kingdom under an international agreement to which the United Kingdom is party, or

(b) to a register maintained by an international organisation specified in the order,

as they apply in relation to material open to public inspection pursuant to a statutory requirement or to a statutory register.

(6) In this section—

*

“appropriate person” means the person required to make the material open to public inspection or, as the case may be, the person maintaining the register;
*

“statutory register” means a register maintained in pursuance of a statutory requirement; and
*

“statutory requirement” means a requirement imposed by provision made by or under an enactment.

(7) An order under this section shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(1) would seem to be the relevant paragraph. Essentially, it says that copyright isn't infringed, no matter how much of it is copied - provided copies aren't made available to the public, which publishing the accounts on a website clearly is doing. (4) may be applicable, but I don't think it is.

Sadly, then, Paul does appear to be correct.
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Eric Rucker Message #112227, posted by bhtooefr at 19:55, 11/12/2009, in reply to message #112226
Member
Posts: 337
If (1) applies, what about (2)?

Also, could the full T&Cs be posted?

[Edited by bhtooefr at 19:56, 11/12/2009]
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Pages (7): |< < 5 > >|

The Icon Bar: News and features: What is the point of RISCOS Ltd?