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
- Git client updated to 0.07 (News:2)
- Archive Edition 27:1 reviewed (News:)
- Rougol April 2024 meeting on monday is Anniversary time (News:1)
- WROCC April 2024 meeting o...changes to our phone lines (News:1)
- April developer 'fireside' chat is on saturday night (News:)
- March 2024 News Summary (News:4)
- WROCC Newsletter Volume 41:11 reviewed (News:)
- WROCC March 2024 meeting o... Hughes and Peter Richmond (News:1)
- Rougol March 2024 meeting on monday with Bernard Boase (News:)
- Drag'n'Drop 13i2 edition reviewed (News:)
Related articles
- Iconbar in update shocker!
- Alpha benchmarks, Omega tittle tattle
- Wakey Wakey, it's show time again!
- Show! There's a show! Show happening! [updated^2]
- A9home watch
- R-Comp prepare for Wakefield [updated]
- R-Comp Interactive go to Extremes
- eBay watch: Working A4s, VRAM, and cheap hardware
- 8 bit news
- A6 A6+
Latest postings RSS Feeds
RSS 2.0 | 1.0 | 0.9
Atom 0.3
Misc RDF | CDF
 
View on Mastodon
@www.iconbar.com@rss-parrot.net
Site Search
 
Article archives
The Icon Bar: News and features: More trouble for VirtualAcorn (updated)
 

More trouble for VirtualAcorn (updated)

Posted by Richard Goodwin on 12:56, 14/2/2002 | , , , , ,
 
More trouble is brewing for VirtualAcorn after John Kortink has found that the VA CD comes with some of his Shareware without his consent.

John, author of utilities such as Translator, Creator, PackDir and creator of the Viewfinder graphics card, is a little upset at the inclusion of software that requires his approval before being included with other products. Although VA have offered to remove the offending software - Translator, Creator and Earthmap - from future releases, they did not initially issue a recall or scrap the latest batch of CDs. If they didn't, John was talking about a criminal lawsuit on the advice of his lawyer.

This comes just after the release of v1.10 of the software (and hence, probably a new batch of CDs), and Paul Middleton's continued attack on emulators in the Foundation newsletter of 8th February.

Update: the current batch of CDs have now been scrapped.

Source: Usenet
 

  More trouble for VirtualAcorn (updated)
  This is a long thread. Click here to view the threaded list.
 
Graham Message #90117, posted at 10:08, 15/2/2002, in reply to message #90116
Unregistered user No, we'd better not all pack up now.
That implies to me that we should seek an alternative OS to use.
No thanks. I like using RISC OS and want to continue using it.
We must not stop striving for further development to the OS no matter how difficult it can be at times.

As far as ROL v VA goes, I think it has nothing to do with ROL and they would be better off using their time and efforts
elsewhere.VA v John Kortink is another matter. VA have made a mistake (a large one) in not obtaining permission from the software
authors to bundle their software with VA.Permission must be obtained, no matter how hard or time consuming it is to get it.
Otherwise you end up with a situation like the current one, which is bad for everyone.
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Andrew P Harmsworth Message #90118, posted at 13:17, 15/2/2002, in reply to message #90117
Unregistered user It seems to me that a sense of perspective is needed here. In my school, which has gone largely PC, there is a call for VirtualAcorn as we have to use PCs, but can no longer run RISC OS software on anything other than a few remaining Acorns. Having tried the demo with three members of staff, they are overy the moon at the prospect of using their 'old' software again.

I believe that this latest saga in the VA initiative is all a big misunderstanding, especially after Aaron's comments. If the current user base - that are helping drive the platform's future - can't get along, then there will be no future to look forward to.
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Steffen Huber Message #90119, posted at 17:21, 15/2/2002, in reply to message #90118
Unregistered user What many of you have said in your comments effectively boils down to "Well, I like VirtualA5000 and I think that it is a product with great potential for our market. Therefore, I don't care about any breaches of licencing and copyright."

Strange attitude. Maybe it is indeed time to look for another platform if the RISC OS users don't care about legal things anymore. Very sad. And reading the comment Aaron has made, I feel just a lot more sad.

Steffen
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Andrew P Harmsworth Message #90120, posted at 12:24, 16/2/2002, in reply to message #90119
Unregistered user The bottom line is that it's either legal, or not. If the software licence says you can distribute it, then you can. If it says you can't, then you can, but you shouldn't. Not without asking.

Having just looked at the licence, it is probably ambiguous. If you ask me this is all just a big misunderstanding over whether or not it is distributed as part of a product, or merely distributed unchanged on the CD.
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Guest Message #90121, posted at 20:24, 16/2/2002, in reply to message #90120
Unregistered user My god Andrew, in one sentence you say it can't be ambiguous, and the very next you say it is! Make your mind up!
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Guy Inchbald Message #90122, posted at 21:02, 16/2/2002, in reply to message #90121
Unregistered user well, let's just say it shouldn't be ambiguous, but it seems to have turned out that way.
C'm on guys, let Aaron and co sort it out between themselves before you pass judgement.
Oh silly me, this is the RISCOS community ;oP
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Guest Message #90123, posted at 22:50, 16/2/2002, in reply to message #90122
Unregistered user The fact remains that VirtualAcorn is illegal, it's damaging and John Kortink does right to protect his interests. VA are a bunch of crooks who have it coming - count on it.
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Guest Message #90124, posted at 00:29, 17/2/2002, in reply to message #90123
Unregistered user I think its time for those parties involved to put their vested interests aside and privetly sort out their differences.
Do it soon before the RISCOS community becomes the laughing stock of the computing world.
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Guest Message #90125, posted at 01:15, 17/2/2002, in reply to message #90124
Unregistered user Just a quick note to let everyone know that
VA and John Kortink have settled their
dispute. VA will not use his software, and
John won't sue.
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Guest Message #90126, posted at 01:41, 17/2/2002, in reply to message #90125
Unregistered user I'm afraid that the RISCOS community is already the laughing stock of the computing world.

Sad isn't it.
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Guest Message #90127, posted at 02:22, 17/2/2002, in reply to message #90126
Unregistered user Well, it's no surprise that John has decided not to go to court. It would have been laughed out of court. No financial loss was incurred by John Kortink - if anything, John will have benefitted financially out of the distribution.
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Guest Message #90128, posted at 11:52, 17/2/2002, in reply to message #90127
Unregistered user Yes, I agree, it's so obvious. Why can't people see this instead of starting all this petty bickering?
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Guest Message #90129, posted at 15:14, 17/2/2002, in reply to message #90128
Unregistered user I think John has a right to object to his software being published without consent, but RISC OS 3.11 is nearly 10(?) years old, and I can't see the release of it causing any problems. Pace probably agreed to it simply because they couldn't care about an obsolete OS. Paul Middleton is just annoyed because native RISC OS hardware will be superceded by emulation if RISC OS stays unported to newer machines, which ironically is his fault.
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Guest Message #90130, posted at 16:44, 17/2/2002, in reply to message #90129
Unregistered user To guest immediately above -- it's NOT YOUR CHOICE whether you think it could do any damage or not. You don't own it and you have no part to play in the legality of saying "it's ok to release commercial things for free so long as it's 10 years old". Get a grip.
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Guest Message #90131, posted at 18:13, 17/2/2002, in reply to message #90130
Unregistered user Petty bickering. See what I mean?
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
John Hoare Message #90132, posted at 19:01, 17/2/2002, in reply to message #90131
Unregistered user To be fair, there's petty bickering in every community - whether it's RISC OS, Mac OS, Casualty fan clubs... it's just when there's so few people, it tends to show up more.
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Anonymous Message #90133, posted at 12:47, 18/2/2002, in reply to message #90132
Unregistered user There are some *very* sad and lonely people who spend all of their time running down everyone in the RISC OS market and then accusing the 'community' of 'petty bickering'. Get a life! And it's not a bloody 'community', or a nice friendly family, it's a commercial marketplace!!!!
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
John Hoare Message #90134, posted at 13:43, 18/2/2002, in reply to message #90133
Unregistered user Not a community? That's one of the most cynical things I've read in a long time...
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Guest Message #90135, posted at 14:09, 18/2/2002, in reply to message #90134
Unregistered user Compared to a number of other "communities" focused on software products and solutions, the RISC OS scene really doesn't have much to offer at all, apart from a number of self-important "celebrities", mindless corporate cheerleading, and a "don't rock the boat" mentality when the boat has not only capsized, but is, in fact, resting on the sea bed.
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Anonymous Message #90136, posted at 14:09, 18/2/2002, in reply to message #90135
Unregistered user Maybe you should read more.
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Guest Message #90137, posted at 14:51, 18/2/2002, in reply to message #90136
Unregistered user Seems to me that there are a number of people who post on here for the sole reason to cause quarrels and throw the platform into a bad light. If you use Risc OS and want to continue to use it, how about a little positivity??

Stu
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Guest Message #90138, posted at 15:06, 18/2/2002, in reply to message #90137
Unregistered user I'd still be using RISC OS if the companies involved were positive in the slightest, but they seem only interested in a quick buck. RISC OS needs some money spent on it, and the most important people here are RISCOS Ltd., and they're too tight to spend a penny.
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Guest Message #90139, posted at 15:07, 18/2/2002, in reply to message #90138
Unregistered user Read more? Get out more!
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
John Hoare Message #90140, posted at 15:14, 18/2/2002, in reply to message #90139
Unregistered user Eeek! Could Anonymous and Guest at least identify themselves with letters? It's hard following the argument here!
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Guest Message #90141, posted at 15:20, 18/2/2002, in reply to message #90140
Unregistered user Well, After a conversation with someone at RiscStation, I got the impression that they were very upbeat about the future, and had hopes for the market to expand.

Stu (login won't work!!)
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Guest Message #90142, posted at 15:21, 18/2/2002, in reply to message #90141
Unregistered user I'm not sure that RISC OS really does need money being spent on it. People have to decide what the most important thing about their RISC OS experience is - what, in effect, constitutes the RISC OS platform for them - and then embrace that whilst taking advantage of other, more competitive/effective technologies.

For some, ROX-Filer is a sufficient enough manifestation of the RISC OS platform. For others, being able to run certain applications in a particular environment is the minimum requirement. What we've seen recently with VirtualAcorn is someone else's redefinition of the RISC OS platform, cutting out the need for ARM/Acorn hardware.

Just as Java is a platform which may have (or have had) hardware implementations, it's a genuine software platform, too. People should consider higher-level platform manifestations for RISC OS as well, if any kind of RISC OS scene is to live on.
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Guest Message #90143, posted at 21:35, 18/2/2002, in reply to message #90142
Unregistered user The situation with regard to Pace agreeing to Virtual Acorn's distribution of RISC OS 3.11 is quite simple. PACE OWN RISC OS - they have every right to do with it as they please, and assuming that RISC OS Ltd cannot sell into emulation form (as has been posted various times on this thread) it's not in contravention of any licensing agreement.
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Guest Message #90144, posted at 09:45, 19/2/2002, in reply to message #90143
Unregistered user It may sound reprehensible here but I'm sick and tired of this topic.
There is some good Riscos news out there somewhere.
Geoff
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Richard Goodwin Message #90145, posted at 10:14, 19/2/2002, in reply to message #90144
Unregistered user Alas I've been looking for stuff to knock this one off the top news spot (which is the spot that gets the most comments for some reason), but look at all the other news sites - nothing's happening ATM :(
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Guest Message #90146, posted at 10:43, 19/2/2002, in reply to message #90145
Unregistered user Okay, Rich... what if I told you that I was thinking about dredging up an old, unfinished budget game I started in the dim and distant past? Would that be news? Actually, probably not unless I can definitely squeeze the time in to actually write it - until actually written, its just vapourware. :-/ Anyone wanna offer me any work which pays as well as my current stuff but doesn't actually involve me actually doing anything?

VinceH
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Pages (6): |< < 2 > >|

The Icon Bar: News and features: More trouble for VirtualAcorn (updated)