David Kastrup wrote: > > Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > David Kastrup wrote: > >> > >> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> > >> > Barnes & Thornburg LLP on price: > >> > > >> > ------- > >> > Plaintiff's argument [...] is untenable [...] > >> > > >> > He he. > >> > >> You are hopping with glee because a commentary butchers the theories > >> of your personal hero? > >> > >> Well, Wallace certainly provides you with fun, it appears. > > > > Hey dak, do you know where can I find negativily priced GPL'd stuff? > > You better start looking, since Wallace's line of argument implies > just that. Which is why it is untenable.
And once again you got it backwards. Wallace's argument was that ----- The alleged contractual agreement (the GPL) used by the defendants explicitly requires a single, uniform licensing fee be charged for use of the distributed intellectual property: b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License. GPL sec. 2(b) [emphasis added]. This uniform pricing requirement fixes simultaneously and non-negotiably, both the minimum (floor) and maximum (ceiling) prices for all parties. This type of uniform minimum price fixing scheme in a vertical agreement thus constitutes a per se violation of sec. 1. ----- And now Barnes & Thornburg LLP argues that Wallace's argument is "untenable" because there might be negatively priced GPL'd stuff and that there is "no indication that ... such would in any way violate the GPL". So once again, do you know where can I find negatively priced GPL'd stuff, dak? Half the profit for a link! Heck, 75 percent!! 90 if you insist!!! regards, alexander. _______________________________________________ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
