The Icon Bar: RISC OS emulators - a clarification...?

RISC OS emulators - a clarification...?

It's a long one folks...

After posting about the Virtual Acorn VirtualA5000 emulator, based on Red Squirrel, word came that Paul Middleton had said that RISC OS emulators were in fact breaking copyright. This has caused much speculation, on the newsgroups and here on our news boards. Having now got a copy of the Foundation newsletter in question, and having asked Aaron Timbrell (who is marketing VirtualA5000) for his opinion, here's what I can gather...

Dated December 17th, the full VirtualA5000 message came like this...

Virtual Acorn is the new brand name for commercial versions of the exceptionally popular Red Squirrel Acorn emulator. The first commercial RISC OS emulator for Windows, called VirtualA5000, emulates an Acorn A5000 computer with up to 16Mb of RAM.

This allows a user with a Windows PC to run RISC OS on it, and hence run RISC OS programs. Following our agreement with Pace, the copyright holders for RISC OS, VirtualA5000 will be supplied complete with RISC OS 3.11, the universal !Boot sequence and a host of applications (full details to be announced). Projected price is £29 (plus carriage).

VirtualA5000 will get its first public release at the BETT 2002 show in early January. For more details please visit the VirtualAcorn website at http://www.VirtualAcorn.co.uk

The Foundation newsletter, dated 8th January, had this to say (with our emphasis added)...

RISC OS emulators
There has been much discussion on newsgroups recently about programs designed to emulate an ARM based computer running on Wintel based PC's.

Until recently these programs have been released as shareware and were only capable of running RISC OS 3 based software.

However recent releases have been promoted as being capable of running RISC OS 4 and even RISC OS Select.

These programs raise serious questions regarding RISC OS licencing as all current ROM versions of RISC OS are only licenced for use on one machine and there is no allowance for RISC OS being copied out of ROM from one machine for use on another computer.

(The RISC OS Select Scheme is different as it allows use on multiple machines owned by one person which have RISC OS 4 installed in ROM on each machine.)

RISCOS Ltd has the worldwide licence to the RISC OS Operating System for use in the Desktop Computer Market and I have to report that no-one has a written licence to distribute any version of RISC OS for use with PC based emulators.

Any unlicenced sales of any version RISC OS means that the income from those sales only goes to those who are pirating RISC OS and does not go into further developments of RISC OS.

If you have bought an emulator in the expectation of running RISC OS on it then there is no product which is legally licenced to do that at present. RISC OS 3.11 in particular has not been placed into the public domain and Pace as copyright holders of RISC OS have made it quite clear that they reserve all rights to take action against anyone who abuses the RISC OS rights by illegal distribution of unlicenced copies of RISC OS.

If you have paid for any form of Acorn emulator which includes any version of the RISC OS Operating System then we strongly suggest that you return the product to the supplier for a full refund until such time as legally licenced copies of RISC OS are available from RISCOS Ltd for use with such emulators.

Now, given the disparity in the dates - three weeks in fact - it seems unlikely that Paul was unaware of the VirtualA5000 posting. Also note in our emphasis that he talks about paid for emulators - how many other paid-for RISC OS emulators are there out there? Red Squirrel isn't Shareware, it's completely free; the only other RISC OS emulator currently available is Archie, which is also a free download and seems to have gone into "hibernation" in February 2001. So, this posting seems aimed specifically at VirtualA5000, rather than just the PD emulators. It also seems a pity that the concept of "fair use" doesn't seem to come into play either, that is, is making a copy of your own legitimate software (i.e. the OS in ROM) really breaking copyright as Paul insists?

Aaron responded to both myself and Paul Vigay's request for a quote, and basically he's adamant that he's licensed RISC OS 3.1 from Pace, who are the copyright holders. As he says, he wouldn't be "advertising the product, promoting it, attending the BETT show, and sending sample versions to Pace without an agreement". And given that Paul M says himself that Pace hold the copyright, it would seem that Aaron is completely in the right here.

So, just a case of bad timing in the release of the two messages? Was Paul Middleton misinformed? Didn't bother to check the facts? Or a bit of FUD to stop people buying a copy of RISC OS he's not in control of? He, alas, has not been quite so forthcoming via email, so perhaps there will have to be yet another followup to this saga.

RISC OS emulators - a clarification...?

This is a long thread. Click here to view the threaded list.

Guest

Message #89829, posted at 09:27, 15/1/2002, in reply to message #89828

Unregistered user

All in all, it looks like Pace have bought the intellectual property rights to the traditional Acorn sales/marketing cockup along with the OS.
PM aka ROL has my sympathy.
Guy

PS or do Pace care enough to tell us different?

[ Log in to reply ]

Guest

Message #89830, posted at 10:14, 15/1/2002, in reply to message #89829

Unregistered user

I see this argument has gone the way of the acorn newsgroup i.e. the following has been assumed :

* ROL/PM is scared of VirtualAcorn sales

That is pure assumption. The section that talks about money is EXACTLY the same as all preceding statements from all software developers, record producers, video producers etc that unlicensed copies of products harm the genuine producers. The argument is whether VirtualAcorn (a name never mentioned anywhere in the newsletter by the way) is licensed or not or whether it as an agreement of use between them and Pace. As far as I can tell VirtualAcorn is an unlicensed product but PAce have agreed that R3.11 can be distributed with it (a legal minefield). This of course has nothing to do with ROL Ltd (who license R4) and therefere it is exceedingly unlikely Pace would phone up PM and tell him. In that context PM's warning of unlicensed products was done in good faith. If he knew of the agreement then yes it is underhand, but I doubt he would for the reasons stated.

All in all a huge amount of speculation about intentions and mud slinging from people who's stance is anti ROL Ltd. Personally I think some of the accusations against ROL Ltd and or PM are dangerously close to libel, very very close.

[ Log in to reply ]

Guest

Message #89831, posted at 13:05, 15/1/2002, in reply to message #89830

Unregistered user

Well if Pace didn't tell ROL, surely Virtual Acorn must have. After all, they did contact all the hardware vendors, and are working in partnership with them apparently. If they didn't bother to invite ROL to the table then they deserve ROLs wrath, but:
a). Nobody's provided any clarification
b). I can't believe they'd do that

The only way this can be settled is for all parties to come out and say exactly what is/was going on. As is the way with these thigs, I doubt it'll ever happen.

I do feel sorry for Paul Middleton. I know he works very hard indeed - he just seems to have an unfortunate habit for shooting himself in the foot.

Robert

[ Log in to reply ]

Guest

Message #89832, posted at 13:21, 15/1/2002, in reply to message #89831

Unregistered user

Assertion:

RISC OS Ltd. have nothing to fear from VirtualA5000.

Analysis:

RISC OS Ltd. need people to own physical ARM-based hardware, along with the Acorn-originating support circuitry in order for them to be in any kind of position to buy or license RISC OS 4/Select. (Unless RISC OS Ltd. change their position on emulators running RISC OS 4/Select.)

Currently, compatible ("Acorn") hardware is regarding as underperforming and expensive. Moreover, expectations of computer systems have arguably increased beyond the levels that are offered by the hardware which could run RISC OS 4/Select.

Some individuals may wish to continue to have a RISC OS experience. In the past, this has caused them to retain Acorn hardware, or even to buy new hardware, which may coexist with generic hardware for other computing purposes. Such "Acorn" hardware represents a sales opportunity for RISC OS Ltd.

With VirtualA5000, some kind of RISC OS experience is offered without "Acorn" hardware, thus reducing any need for RISC OS experience-seekers to retain "Acorn" hardware. Consequently, RISC OS Ltd. sales opportunities are lost.

Possible measures for RISC OS Ltd.:

RISC OS Ltd. could emphasise the enhanced nature of RISC OS 4/Select over RISC OS 3.x in order to attempt to persuade users to retain and purchase "Acorn" hardware. However, this depends on the level of interest that any given user has in the RISC OS experience. Moreover, features such as long filenames must surely have been available in some form over networked filesystems in the pre-RISC OS 4 era - VirtualA5000 can (or does) offer similar filesystems.

RISC OS Ltd. could license RISC OS 4/Select to emulator producers. This would "reinstate" the lost sales opportunities amongst users who were prepared to abandon "Acorn" hardware.

Conclusions:

There may not be a compelling reason to purchase RISC OS 4/Select for an emulator, given a reasonable RISC OS experience with earlier releases of the operating system and a capable "native" experience on the hardware being used. As a result, licensing revenues would continue to decline.

Even if new "Acorn" hardware were only to run RISC OS 4/Select, there is not necessarily a compelling set of reasons for purchasing such hardware, especially given the other computing needs of many users (and financial restrictions most people have). As a result, licensing revenues through hardware sales would decline.

Suggestions:

RISC OS Ltd. need to do everything possible to encourage the licensing of their product. They need to respect the general computing needs of potential customers, and to accept that emulation is a viable alternative to "Acorn" hardware. This policy is not sufficient to reverse or even slow the decline of sales/licensing revenues; therefore, RISC OS Ltd. should seek to improve the RISC OS experience to levels which encourage upgrades from earlier releases of the operating system - this could involve work in the area of applications, or it could involve partnership with emulator producers, although an emulation is not in itself a justification for its own existence.

[ Log in to reply ]

flounder

Message #89833, posted at 13:59, 26/1/2002, in reply to message #89832

Unregistered user

Just to clarify:

AT informed PM of his agreement with Pace at the beginning of December, before he announced the product to the great unw
ashed.

[ Log in to reply ]

Pages (2): |< < 2