Re: Eben was absent that day in law school

[Alexander Terekhov]

David Kastrup wrote:
> 
> Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:
> 
> > David Kastrup wrote:
> >>
> >> Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> 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 appears.
> >
> > Hey dak, do you know where can I find negativily priced GPL'd stuff?
> 
> You better start looking, since Wallace's line of argument implies
> just that.  Which is why it is untenable.

And once again you got it backwards. Wallace's argument was that 

-----
The alleged contractual agreement (the GPL) used by the defendants
explicitly requires a single, uniform licensing fee be charged for use
of the distributed intellectual property:
“b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part
thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties
under the terms of this License.” GPL sec. 2(b) [emphasis added]. 

This uniform pricing requirement fixes simultaneously and
non-negotiably, both the minimum (floor) and maximum (ceiling) prices
for all parties. This type of uniform minimum price fixing scheme in a
vertical agreement thus constitutes a per se violation of sec. 1. 
-----

And now Barnes & Thornburg LLP argues that Wallace's argument is 
"untenable" because there might be negatively priced GPL'd stuff and 
that there is "no indication that ... such would in any way violate 
the GPL".

So once again, do you know where can I find negatively priced GPL'd 
stuff, dak?

Half the profit for a link! Heck, 75 percent!! 90 if you insist!!!

regards,
alexander.