Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > David Kastrup wrote: > [...] >> There are no "losses from GPL conspiracy". RedHat sells its media at >> a profit. > > dak. dak. dak. > > Why don't you go to https://www.redhat.com/apps/commerce/ and check > yourself what they are selling. IIRC, media kits are optional and > free (as in free beer, not GNU "freedom"). They sell only contracts > and, pursuant to the GPL, they don't charge anything for GPL'd IP.
Look, you need to decide what the market is. One moment you decide that it's "operating system images" (more or less), the next moment you are again back at "GPL'd IP", and "IP" would be the copyright, not the software. If even a legal eagle like you gets confused all the time, you can't blame the judges not to be able to follow this kind of reasoning. > QED. Uh, why don't you check that page yourself? Service contracts cost _extra_. The cheapest version you can get ($179) has only - 30 Days Installation and Basic Configuration Phone Support That's pretty standard for operating system sales. You can have your products shipped, or you can download them. That's pretty standard for software sales, too. So the problem you seem to be having is that _some_ kind of images can be downloaded without support. This is not valuing the _IP_ at zero (since you can't get the copyright transferred in that manner), but is valuing the media at zero. And this downloadability makes the sales profitable in the _same_ market segment, namely operating system images. So there is no "recouping" going on. If it were, any kind of advertising would be priced predatorily, since it carries associated costs which are then "recouped" in the market. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
