Re: GPL v3 Draft
On 2/22/06, Alexander Terekhov <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Barnes & Thornburg LLP on price:
> Plaintiff's argument that an agreement to license any derivative works
> at "no charge" is somehow a "minimum" re-sale price is untenable given
> that the provision does not set a "price" for licenses at all, but
> rather provides that there shall be "no" price for licenses. (Response
> at 10; GPL para. 2(b).) Furthermore, a "minimum" price agreement
> requires that any price below that price would violate the agreement.
> There is no indication that in the unlikely event a licensor wished to
> license modifications to the GPL at a price below zero (i.e., an
> effective negative price by paying the licensee to take the license),
> such would in any way violate the GPL. To the extent the GPL is
> analogous to any type of price restraint, it would be no more than a
Wallace's argument was about collective works to begin with.
Alternative Vertical Analysis
In the alternative, if the GPL license is viewed simply as
distributing a collective work in a vertical agreement ...
Somehow it got translated by Barnes & Thornburg LLP to
"Plaintiff's argument that an agreement to license any derivative works"
Any ideas, all?
Oh, Ah, BTW... does anyone know where can I find a negatively priced
Half the profit for a link! Heck, 75 percent!! 90 if you insist!!!