Peter T. Breuer wrote: > In comp.os.linux.misc David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> . Microsoft said you can sell Windows >> and other operating systems, but there will be a charge for every >> machine you sell without Windows -- if you want to be able to buy >> Windows wholesale. Someone could comply with this by not selling any >> other operating systems at all and never pay the fee. Therefore, >> this is a lesser restriction than saying you can only sell Windows >> wholesale if you don't sell or offer any competing systems. > No - you claim that allowing somebody (by contract?) to do Z at a > penalty is "lesser" than disallowing them from doing Z. Sorry - both > are equal in market economics (where the financial imperatve rules). Umm, no it's lesser in a strictly logical sense. > Indeed, no contract can "disallow" somebody from doing Z - you are > always at liberty to break a contract! (See the RH Enterprise licence > as an example of a contract that you are at liberty to break by > copying RHE to more machines at the penalty of losing RH maintenance > support- I recently had this argument with Rick Moen). The penalty > for doing so is what is at issue. > > So your definitions are anyway without semantic content, and hence the > argument cannot proceed. My argument proceeds exactly the same if they're equal as if they're lesser. It is totally not dependent upon how much lesser it is. > And even if the argument were too proceed, your use of "lesser" would > fail, because it appears to mean "is a (proper) subset of the ways > that" without having established what different (i.e. same) means, and > I'd submit that there is no diffence between the elements you exhibit > in the setting of market regulation law. My argument proceeds the same if they're equivalent. (Did you read it?!) DS -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list