Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Isaac wrote:
[...]
Nonsense.
Breaking new.
Barnes Thornburg LLP on the GPL (Wallace v IBM et al):
-
Although it is not clear how it is relevant to whether the per se or
rule of reason analysis would apply, Plaintiff also argues
Moglen's underling Fontana in action.
http://www.ciocentral.com/article/Questions+Still+Abound+over+GPL+3+/171577_1.aspx
On the DRM front, there is little the GPL can do to fix this, and
this is a matter that needs to be taken up by the legislature, Fontana
said.
But, that being said,
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
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
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
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
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
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Barnes Thornburg LLP on price:
---
Plaintiff's argument that an agreement to license any derivative works
Uhmm.
Wallace's argument was about collective works to begin with.
-
Alternative Vertical Analysis
In the alternative, if the GPL license is
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Isaac wrote:
[...]
Nonsense.
Breaking new.
Barnes Thornburg LLP on the GPL (Wallace v IBM et al):
-
Although it is not clear how it is relevant to whether the per se or
rule of reason analysis
