Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > David Kastrup wrote: > [...] >> I don't see anything like "RedHat IP -- $0" listed on their page. In > > You can't find the GPL (IP -- $0) and all sort of GPL'd stuff on their > page? Very interesting. > >> fact, they retain their IP and don't give their copyright away. They > > Outright transfers of title in IP is not what Wallace's case is > about. Wallace case is about GPL licensing agreement (pooling the > copyright and patent rights in derivative and collective works under > the GPL), not some copyright assignment agreements (something a la > copyright assignment forms issued by the FSF for their official > branch of the GNU project in which the title in IP belongs to the > FSF and only the FSF).
Congratulations, you get it. RedHat is not selling its IP for $0. It is offering _one_ way of obtaining a licensed copy for $0 (if you consider downloading expenses non-existent). It is also offering other ways for other prices. So they are not selling their IP, and there is no fixed price for licensed copies of it, either. >> provide, however, downloads for $0, so they price a particular form >> of _copies_ at no charge. > > And once again you attempt to misinterpret Wallace's case. Well, he _has_ no case, remember? That's what the court finally rules after giving him lots of leeway to actually state a case. Thus every interpretation of his "case" has to be a misinterpretation. > Wallace case is not about copies (material objects). It's about > licensing of exclusive rights established by copyright and patent > laws. But licenses are bound to particular physical copies. This is the reason why "Wallace case" is not a case at all. "IP" implies the right to pick the license for your work. And RedHat does not give that right away. As a consequence, the only party that has standing to sue for breach of RedHat's copyright is RedHat itself. >> They also price other copy forms at larger charges. > > RedHat's media kits are optional and gratis. > >> It is like a free art catalogue: you are free to cut and >> paste and frame stuff from the catalogue for your home, but they >> make their money with people buying the pieces advertised in that >> manner. > > RedHat doesn't sell GPL'd IP to public. GPL'd IP (apart from > outright transfer of title) is price-fixed at "no charge" and is > available gratis (pursuant to the GPL). Nonsense. They retain their copyright and don't sell it. Licensing is concerned with physical copies. This difference is crucial for making a case, and conflating it like you and Wallace is not going to fly in court. >> > Ancillary service that they supply is priced far above costs of >> > providing the service (above predatory levels) and it is used to >> > recoup loses from GPL conspiracy and turn a profit. Got it now? >> >> It is called advertising. > > You're hallucinating. Good to hear. You have refrained from insults for so long that I had almost been afraid you did not realize you were with the back to the wall with your "legal" arguments. Thanks for setting the record straight again. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
