On 3/7/07, geni <geniice(a)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.
The fun comes in when defineing cost remeber Forrest
Gump made a net loss
Still, it was a commercial enterprise.
So what about the person hosting the blog?
I'm guessing that he would have take it down if sent a DMCA takedown
notice since he is exercising "the rights granted to You in Section 3
above in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed toward
commercial advantage". As I said, I'm not a lawyer so I'm not sure,
but this cannot be too complicated for a legal professional to parse.
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?
--Oskar