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 maximum vertical restrain subject to the rule of reason. -------
He he. regards, alexander.
