On 2/22/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Barnes & Thornburg LLP on price: > > ------- > Plaintiff's argument that an agreement to license any derivative works > at "no charge" is somehow a "minimum" re-sale price is untenable given > that the provision does not set a "price" for licenses at all, but > rather provides that there shall be "no" price for licenses. (Response > at 10; GPL para. 2(b).) Furthermore, a "minimum" price agreement > requires that any price below that price would violate the agreement. > There is no indication that in the unlikely event a licensor wished to > license modifications to the GPL at a price below zero (i.e., an > effective negative price by paying the licensee to take the license), > such would in any way violate the GPL. To the extent the GPL is > analogous to any type of price restraint, it would be no more than a
Uhmm. Wallace's argument was about collective works to begin with. ----- Alternative Vertical Analysis In the alternative, if the GPL license is viewed simply as distributing a collective work in a vertical agreement ... ----- Somehow it got translated by Barnes & Thornburg LLP to "Plaintiff's argument that an agreement to license any derivative works" Any ideas, all? Oh, Ah, BTW... does anyone know where can I find a negatively priced GPL'd stuff? Half the profit for a link! Heck, 75 percent!! 90 if you insist!!! regards, alexander.