On Wed, Feb 15, 2006 at 03:23:33PM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> On 2/15/06, Yorick Cool <yorick.cool@fundp.ac.be> wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 15, 2006 at 11:28:22AM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > > On 2/14/06, Yorick Cool <yorick.cool@fundp.ac.be> wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > Assuming you mean the FSF and/or GNU project, with whom are they
> > > > entering onto agreement? Mmmmh?
> > >
> > > I mean the GPL license.
> >
> > The GPL is a text, not an undertaking you can sue under art. 81. Which
> > are the undertakings entering an unlawful agreement?
>
> Next stupid question, please. Are you really educated in (some) law?
Check for yourself.
http://www.fundp.ac.be/universite/personnes/page_view/01005395/
Sorry it's in french (the website has just been revamped), but I guess
you'll get the gist of it. A hint: "logiciels libres" means "free software".
It is far from being a stupid question. Before saying the GPL is
tantamount to price-fixing, you have to at least state who concluded
the price-fixing agreement you consider the GPL to be. I'll concede to
you it is elementary, (competition law, day one), but you are the one
who hasn't done it, not me.
>
> [...]
> > The problem is that the GPL does not restrict competition, but rather
> > enhances it. See, among others, the very good article Ville sent you.
>
> Not entirely bad article, I agree. I just don't find his argumentation
> convincing.
Just like I don't find Wallace's argument convincing.
>
>
> > See also the very simple fact that GNU/Linux is the first serious
> > competitor to MS Windows to emerge in quite some time. This in and of
> > itself demonstrates a heightening in competition, not a restriction.
>
> Fighting competition by employing unlawful means is illegal. Wallace
> didn't sue Apple and Darwin folk for foreclosing competition using
> predatory price fixing of pooled and cross-licensed IP with the BSD.
> Because the BSD doesn't price fix IP, I gather.
When a certain practice actually heightens competition (and fills
other criteria I have stated elsewhere), it is not unlawful. That is
my whole point.
>
> [...]
> > The central fact is very simple: there is no price-fixing in the
> > GPL.
>
> Mikko Välimäki seems to disagree.
You forgot to read the end of his reasoning. After having accepted the
idea that one might argue that the GPL might be seen as price-fixing
because of the zero royalties, he states -- just like I do -- that
fixing zero royalties is not the same thing as fixing a zero price "A
royalty-free requirement does not imply that the price of the software
must be zero. Software can be priced through other means than
copyright royalties as well."
>
> > The "conflation between the copyright assets and the physical
> > media" is not, in this specific case, illegitimate. ...
>
> Well, we'll see.
Yep.
>
> > Also, please stop CCing people. I am subscribed to the list and don't
> > need your answers twice.
>
> Please learn how to set up followup-to if it bothers you.
Nah, I'll just invoke the code of conduct, which allows me not to bother.
Code of conduct
When using the Debian mailing lists, please follow these rules:
(...)
* When replying to messages on the mailing list, do not send a
carbon copy (CC) to the original poster unless they explicitly
request to be copied.
Yorick
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature