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

[Alexander Terekhov]

David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> I don't see anything like "RedHat IP -- $0" listed on their page.  In

You can't find the GPL (IP -- $0) and all sort of GPL'd stuff on their 
page? Very interesting.

> fact, they retain their IP and don't give their copyright away.  They

Outright transfers of title in IP is not what Wallace's case is about. 
Wallace case is about GPL licensing agreement (pooling the copyright 
and patent rights in derivative and collective works under the GPL), 
not some copyright assignment agreements (something a la copyright 
assignment forms issued by the FSF for their official branch of the 
GNU project in which the title in IP belongs to the FSF and only the 
FSF).

> provide, however, downloads for $0, so they price a particular form of
> _copies_ at no charge. 

And once again you attempt to misinterpret Wallace's case. Wallace 
case is not about copies (material objects). It's about licensing 
of exclusive rights established by copyright and patent laws.
 
>                        They also price other copy forms at larger
> charges. 

RedHat's media kits are optional and gratis.
 
>          It is like a free art catalogue: you are free to cut and
> paste and frame stuff from the catalogue for your home, but they make
> their money with people buying the pieces advertised in that manner.

RedHat doesn't sell GPL'd IP to public. GPL'd IP (apart from outright 
transfer of title) is price-fixed at "no charge" and is available 
gratis (pursuant to the GPL).

> 
> > Ancillary service that they supply is priced far above costs of
> > providing the service (above predatory levels) and it is used to
> > recoup loses from GPL conspiracy and turn a profit. Got it now?
> 
> It is called advertising. 

You're hallucinating. 

regards,
alexander.