On 3/7/07, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/7/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
By defintion selling at cost means not makeing a proffit.
But the license doesn't talk about you actually making a profit, it talks about if you use it in a way that would imply commercial gain. Meaning, if you engage in commerce intended to earn you money, you've crossed the line.
Sure If you can prove I'm intendeding to earn money
Still, it was a commercial enterprise.
What If I used the same tricks on something I claimed wasn't?
I'm not saying it's not tricky, but all law is tricky. That's why you go to school for a bunch of years. Still, since the sticking point here is the concept of "commerce" and "commercial gain", I imagine that this is an area where the boundaries are pretty clear. I mean, come on, there are libraries filled with law books that deal with companies and charities and tax law and such. How is this a "murky" part of jurisprudence?
Because there are a lot of people out there employed to see that it remains murky.