OT: I don't understand why paying employees (or anyone else) in stock isn't inevitably going to be insider trading. It can hardly fail to obtain that sometimes insiders know non-public facts that would change their valuation of shares in the company, when deciding how much stock to pay someone. But insider trading law seems to me to be a joke anyway. It must be pretty difficult to enforce.
On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 23:49:14 -0800 Thomas Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Last word in the "licensing question" thread here: > > http://dasht-brk.livejournal.com/28013.html?mode=reply > > > Free software business models -- solved! > > -t > > p.s. to Andrew: your analogy to insurance is wrong for > reasons that are kind of tedious to rehearse in this forum. > Your self-admitted superficial glance at the contract is > wrong too -- the contract does have that property that a > quick glance at it is likely to lead to a misreading. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Gnu-arch-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users > > GNU arch home page: > http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/ > > -- Robin _______________________________________________ Gnu-arch-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users GNU arch home page: http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/
