Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;)

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> There are no "losses from GPL conspiracy".  RedHat sells its media at
>> a profit.  
>
> dak. dak. dak.
>
> Why don't you go to https://www.redhat.com/apps/commerce/ and check
> yourself what they are selling. IIRC, media kits are optional and
> free (as in free beer, not GNU "freedom"). They sell only contracts
> and, pursuant to the GPL, they don't charge anything for GPL'd IP.

Look, you need to decide what the market is.  One moment you decide
that it's "operating system images" (more or less), the next moment
you are again back at "GPL'd IP", and "IP" would be the copyright, not
the software.

If even a legal eagle like you gets confused all the time, you can't
blame the judges not to be able to follow this kind of reasoning.

> QED.

Uh, why don't you check that page yourself?  Service contracts cost
_extra_.  The cheapest version you can get ($179) has only

   - 30 Days Installation and Basic Configuration Phone Support

That's pretty standard for operating system sales.  You can have your
products shipped, or you can download them.  That's pretty standard
for software sales, too.

So the problem you seem to be having is that _some_ kind of images can
be downloaded without support.  This is not valuing the _IP_ at zero
(since you can't get the copyright transferred in that manner), but is
valuing the media at zero.  And this downloadability makes the sales
profitable in the _same_ market segment, namely operating system
images.  So there is no "recouping" going on.  If it were, any kind of
advertising would be priced predatorily, since it carries associated
costs which are then "recouped" in the market.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum