Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > David Kastrup wrote: > [...] >> So your pseudo-quote about "price-fixing at zero" was a plain lie. > > Oh dear. > > http://sco.tuxrocks.com/Docs/Wallace_v_FSF/Wallace_v_FSF-17.pdf > > "A. Vertical maximum price restraints are not per se unlawful. > > The essence of Plaintiff's Complaint appears to be directed at > Section 2(b) of the GPL, which requires licensees of GPL'd software > to license any derivative works they create at no charge. Assuming > for the sake of argument that Plaintiff has standing to bring this > Complaint, this agreement could be analogized to a vertical maximum > price restraint, i.e., a requirement by the licensor that the > licensee charge no more than X amount upon relicense." > > -- FSF > > Can you read "price restraint" and "no more than X" (X == zero)?
Can you read "assuming for the sake of argument"? Can you read "relicense"? There is no "price fixing" for the intellectual property of anybody except the original licensor, and of course he can set the price for his own stuff. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum _______________________________________________ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
