David Kastrup wrote: [...] > > | Last time I looked, RedHat was getting money. > > > > This fact is compatible with Wallace's claim of predatory pricing > > conspiracy pursuant to the GPL. Those ancillary revenues from "no > > charge" GPL'd code can NOT "explain the lengths to which" > > Microsoft^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HRed Hat "has gone" (see below). It could > > have been BSD and alike licensed code in its entirety which Red Hat > > could have used to produce those ancillary revenues, and Wallace > > doesn't have any problems with RedHat's use of BSD and alike > > licensed code which doesn't price-fix IP at predatory level. > > Reality check: bundling BSD and alike licensed code is, for example, > the business model of Theo de Raadt. His earnings are utterly peanuts > compared to those of RedHat.
Bundling BSD and alike licensed code is, for example, the business model of Apple Computer, Inc. (OS X and Darwin). > > > The Judge in Microsoft antitrust case ruled: > > > > "Proof that a profit-maximizing firm took predatory action should > > suffice to demonstrate the threat of substantial exclusionary effect; > > to hold otherwise would be to ascribe irrational behavior to the > > defendant. Moreover, predatory conduct, by definition as well as by > > nature, lacks procompetitive business motivation. > > But you are glossing over the fact that there is hardly a more > competitive market than the Linux market. It has hundreds of > participants and a very low barrier of entry. What you call "the Linux market" (packaging, patches delivery, etc.) are ancillary markets to the market Wallace's case is about. regards, alexander. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
