<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_05_1550212</id>
	<title>FSFE President Urges Community To Strengthen Open Source As a Brand</title>
	<author>ScuttleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1244223060000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Georg Greve, founder and president of the Free Software Foundation Europe (FSFE), has an insightful look at <a href="http://blogs.fsfe.org/greve/?p=347">FOSS from a brand perspective</a> with urgings that the community come together and strengthen open source as a unified brand.  <i>"There are plenty of false enemies to go around. Ironically, the most common form of false enemy is found around the animosity that has built around branding and framing issues, more specifically in the area of 'Free Software' vs 'Open Source.' Name-calling and quarreling on either side is not helpful, and serves to hide the common base and interest in having a strong brand and powerful message.  The historical facts around Free Software are well documented and available to anyone who wishes to look them up. But instead of focusing on past insults and wrongs, I believe our focus should be on the future. We should realize that what divides us pales in comparison to what we have in common and that division and exclusion are harmful to us all. So we should rein in the name-callers on either side, and empower those people who know how to build cooperation, corporations, and positive feedback loops."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Georg Greve , founder and president of the Free Software Foundation Europe ( FSFE ) , has an insightful look at FOSS from a brand perspective with urgings that the community come together and strengthen open source as a unified brand .
" There are plenty of false enemies to go around .
Ironically , the most common form of false enemy is found around the animosity that has built around branding and framing issues , more specifically in the area of 'Free Software ' vs 'Open Source .
' Name-calling and quarreling on either side is not helpful , and serves to hide the common base and interest in having a strong brand and powerful message .
The historical facts around Free Software are well documented and available to anyone who wishes to look them up .
But instead of focusing on past insults and wrongs , I believe our focus should be on the future .
We should realize that what divides us pales in comparison to what we have in common and that division and exclusion are harmful to us all .
So we should rein in the name-callers on either side , and empower those people who know how to build cooperation , corporations , and positive feedback loops .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Georg Greve, founder and president of the Free Software Foundation Europe (FSFE), has an insightful look at FOSS from a brand perspective with urgings that the community come together and strengthen open source as a unified brand.
"There are plenty of false enemies to go around.
Ironically, the most common form of false enemy is found around the animosity that has built around branding and framing issues, more specifically in the area of 'Free Software' vs 'Open Source.
' Name-calling and quarreling on either side is not helpful, and serves to hide the common base and interest in having a strong brand and powerful message.
The historical facts around Free Software are well documented and available to anyone who wishes to look them up.
But instead of focusing on past insults and wrongs, I believe our focus should be on the future.
We should realize that what divides us pales in comparison to what we have in common and that division and exclusion are harmful to us all.
So we should rein in the name-callers on either side, and empower those people who know how to build cooperation, corporations, and positive feedback loops.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28233961</id>
	<title>Linux is enough of a "brand"</title>
	<author>h00manist</author>
	<datestamp>1244309400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree, I use "linux" as the brand, people recognize it. I describe Open Office, Firefox, and Tremulous as being "from Linux, but ported to Windows".  It's enough.  The problem, as I see it, is that they \_are\_ available in windows, and so nobody has any real need to use Linux.  In other words, what does Linux do for people, that Windows cannot?  Why would they need Linux? To shield them from the illegality of their software?  Provide them with more functionality? Which? Torvalds has it right -   Linux is, still, in need of more drivers. But I also think it needs to ship with more "fun" apps - games, webcam apps, instant messenger and phone apps, etc - things Windows doesn't come built-in with. <a href="https://launchpad.net/wubi" title="launchpad.net" rel="nofollow">Wubi</a> [launchpad.net] also could be used for a lot more, as a base to a quick-boot linux to run these apps, or others.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree , I use " linux " as the brand , people recognize it .
I describe Open Office , Firefox , and Tremulous as being " from Linux , but ported to Windows " .
It 's enough .
The problem , as I see it , is that they \ _are \ _ available in windows , and so nobody has any real need to use Linux .
In other words , what does Linux do for people , that Windows can not ?
Why would they need Linux ?
To shield them from the illegality of their software ?
Provide them with more functionality ?
Which ? Torvalds has it right - Linux is , still , in need of more drivers .
But I also think it needs to ship with more " fun " apps - games , webcam apps , instant messenger and phone apps , etc - things Windows does n't come built-in with .
Wubi [ launchpad.net ] also could be used for a lot more , as a base to a quick-boot linux to run these apps , or others .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree, I use "linux" as the brand, people recognize it.
I describe Open Office, Firefox, and Tremulous as being "from Linux, but ported to Windows".
It's enough.
The problem, as I see it, is that they \_are\_ available in windows, and so nobody has any real need to use Linux.
In other words, what does Linux do for people, that Windows cannot?
Why would they need Linux?
To shield them from the illegality of their software?
Provide them with more functionality?
Which? Torvalds has it right -   Linux is, still, in need of more drivers.
But I also think it needs to ship with more "fun" apps - games, webcam apps, instant messenger and phone apps, etc - things Windows doesn't come built-in with.
Wubi [launchpad.net] also could be used for a lot more, as a base to a quick-boot linux to run these apps, or others.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225547</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225267</id>
	<title>Gore may go to N Korea to "free" US journalists...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244227680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Please, God, let it be so.  And please send Obongo with him!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please , God , let it be so .
And please send Obongo with him !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please, God, let it be so.
And please send Obongo with him!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225111</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225843</id>
	<title>Does the divide really hurt that much?</title>
	<author>migla</author>
	<datestamp>1244230200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FS and OSS developers and users come together just fine developing and promoting FOSS, don't they?</p><p>Like the PFJ, the JPF and the Popular Front, they may be a divided bunch ideologically, but does it really matter much in the case of FOSS?</p><p>(Unlike with the fictional or non-fictional leftist groups, where a divide certainly has hurt their common cause.)</p><p>Any anecdotes or anything to show how the divide actually hurts?</p><p>(If there's examples in the article, I apologize for not reading it)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FS and OSS developers and users come together just fine developing and promoting FOSS , do n't they ? Like the PFJ , the JPF and the Popular Front , they may be a divided bunch ideologically , but does it really matter much in the case of FOSS ?
( Unlike with the fictional or non-fictional leftist groups , where a divide certainly has hurt their common cause .
) Any anecdotes or anything to show how the divide actually hurts ?
( If there 's examples in the article , I apologize for not reading it )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FS and OSS developers and users come together just fine developing and promoting FOSS, don't they?Like the PFJ, the JPF and the Popular Front, they may be a divided bunch ideologically, but does it really matter much in the case of FOSS?
(Unlike with the fictional or non-fictional leftist groups, where a divide certainly has hurt their common cause.
)Any anecdotes or anything to show how the divide actually hurts?
(If there's examples in the article, I apologize for not reading it)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225407</id>
	<title>False Premise</title>
	<author>malevolentjelly</author>
	<datestamp>1244228340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Open source is a random barbarian horde of software developers. That would be like creating a brand for things you heard from "Some guy at a bar". Oh, I heard from some guy at a bar that open source software needs to create a unified brand. Isn't the open source community sort of intentionally decentralized? Creating a brand to unify this stuff would be actually very deceptive. The way distributions currently brand their components is probably about as honest and accurate as anyone should require from a product perspective.</p><p>There is no "official" open source organization. It's a concept.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Open source is a random barbarian horde of software developers .
That would be like creating a brand for things you heard from " Some guy at a bar " .
Oh , I heard from some guy at a bar that open source software needs to create a unified brand .
Is n't the open source community sort of intentionally decentralized ?
Creating a brand to unify this stuff would be actually very deceptive .
The way distributions currently brand their components is probably about as honest and accurate as anyone should require from a product perspective.There is no " official " open source organization .
It 's a concept .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Open source is a random barbarian horde of software developers.
That would be like creating a brand for things you heard from "Some guy at a bar".
Oh, I heard from some guy at a bar that open source software needs to create a unified brand.
Isn't the open source community sort of intentionally decentralized?
Creating a brand to unify this stuff would be actually very deceptive.
The way distributions currently brand their components is probably about as honest and accurate as anyone should require from a product perspective.There is no "official" open source organization.
It's a concept.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28232509</id>
	<title>People prefer "warez" to Open Source.</title>
	<author>h00manist</author>
	<datestamp>1244300460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Both Linux and "warez" are free. How to change things?  Everyone indeed gets bogged down in details, petty issues, etc, and fail to focus on the common objectives and the big picture, still working very hard, thereby accomplishing lots of things, but not the end objectives.   People still continue to prefer Windows, <a href="http://www.google.com/search?&amp;q=install+linux+on+netbook" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">reformatting their preinstalled</a> [google.com] Linux machines with "free" windowz gamez serialz warez?  How to change that? "Because they're \_\_\_\_\_\_."  Not helpful. Even in places where Linux would be favored for the price, people still are tempted to run Windows, whether paid for or not. It's familiar, available, runs the software they want, bending the law a little has no practical consequences. Should Linux techs become friends of the BSA, and start collecting <a href="https://reporting.bsa.org/usa/rewardsconditions.aspx" title="bsa.org" rel="nofollow">US $1M piracy snitch rewards?</a> [bsa.org]. Does gnu/linux/bsd just need more open-source games?  Exchange and Outlook clones?  Instant messengers?  Training programmers and sysadmins? Or just users?  Or would a Linux distro with the ability to run Warez better than Microsoft gain so many users and gain X\% installed base?  How much installed base does microsoft gain from users who never bought anything?  How will standard Linux APIs for voice, video, graphics, 3d,  and a developers kit come about?  However, rather than ponder these difficult questions, a great many will resort to bashing the use of the word "warez", creating more fighting over nothing and accomplishing just that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Both Linux and " warez " are free .
How to change things ?
Everyone indeed gets bogged down in details , petty issues , etc , and fail to focus on the common objectives and the big picture , still working very hard , thereby accomplishing lots of things , but not the end objectives .
People still continue to prefer Windows , reformatting their preinstalled [ google.com ] Linux machines with " free " windowz gamez serialz warez ?
How to change that ?
" Because they 're \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ .
" Not helpful .
Even in places where Linux would be favored for the price , people still are tempted to run Windows , whether paid for or not .
It 's familiar , available , runs the software they want , bending the law a little has no practical consequences .
Should Linux techs become friends of the BSA , and start collecting US $ 1M piracy snitch rewards ?
[ bsa.org ] . Does gnu/linux/bsd just need more open-source games ?
Exchange and Outlook clones ?
Instant messengers ?
Training programmers and sysadmins ?
Or just users ?
Or would a Linux distro with the ability to run Warez better than Microsoft gain so many users and gain X \ % installed base ?
How much installed base does microsoft gain from users who never bought anything ?
How will standard Linux APIs for voice , video , graphics , 3d , and a developers kit come about ?
However , rather than ponder these difficult questions , a great many will resort to bashing the use of the word " warez " , creating more fighting over nothing and accomplishing just that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Both Linux and "warez" are free.
How to change things?
Everyone indeed gets bogged down in details, petty issues, etc, and fail to focus on the common objectives and the big picture, still working very hard, thereby accomplishing lots of things, but not the end objectives.
People still continue to prefer Windows, reformatting their preinstalled [google.com] Linux machines with "free" windowz gamez serialz warez?
How to change that?
"Because they're \_\_\_\_\_\_.
"  Not helpful.
Even in places where Linux would be favored for the price, people still are tempted to run Windows, whether paid for or not.
It's familiar, available, runs the software they want, bending the law a little has no practical consequences.
Should Linux techs become friends of the BSA, and start collecting US $1M piracy snitch rewards?
[bsa.org]. Does gnu/linux/bsd just need more open-source games?
Exchange and Outlook clones?
Instant messengers?
Training programmers and sysadmins?
Or just users?
Or would a Linux distro with the ability to run Warez better than Microsoft gain so many users and gain X\% installed base?
How much installed base does microsoft gain from users who never bought anything?
How will standard Linux APIs for voice, video, graphics, 3d,  and a developers kit come about?
However, rather than ponder these difficult questions, a great many will resort to bashing the use of the word "warez", creating more fighting over nothing and accomplishing just that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225111</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28230099</id>
	<title>Re:Careful!</title>
	<author>QuestionsNotAnswers</author>
	<datestamp>1244222460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is a shame RMS seems to spend a lot of time talking about Linus and Linux in a manner that is divisive rather than collaborative.</p><p>RMS comes across to me as having a bruised ego because Linux has powerful brand recognition, while GNU doesn't. Also it may be because Linus is better at collaboration than RMS.</p><p>Perhaps he did not start the controversy, but he definitely keeps it alive, although fortunately Linus doesn't feed it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is a shame RMS seems to spend a lot of time talking about Linus and Linux in a manner that is divisive rather than collaborative.RMS comes across to me as having a bruised ego because Linux has powerful brand recognition , while GNU does n't .
Also it may be because Linus is better at collaboration than RMS.Perhaps he did not start the controversy , but he definitely keeps it alive , although fortunately Linus does n't feed it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is a shame RMS seems to spend a lot of time talking about Linus and Linux in a manner that is divisive rather than collaborative.RMS comes across to me as having a bruised ego because Linux has powerful brand recognition, while GNU doesn't.
Also it may be because Linus is better at collaboration than RMS.Perhaps he did not start the controversy, but he definitely keeps it alive, although fortunately Linus doesn't feed it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225525</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225355</id>
	<title>Ribbon!</title>
	<author>torreja</author>
	<datestamp>1244228100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>We need a Ribbon!</htmltext>
<tokenext>We need a Ribbon !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We need a Ribbon!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28226073</id>
	<title>Re:Pfah.</title>
	<author>notarockstar1979</author>
	<datestamp>1244231460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, he's got the right idea.  Quit calling him names you putz.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , he 's got the right idea .
Quit calling him names you putz .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, he's got the right idea.
Quit calling him names you putz.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225111</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28229709</id>
	<title>Open Source Software</title>
	<author>MrKaos</author>
	<datestamp>1244216580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Freed software, it's Free!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Freed software , it 's Free !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Freed software, it's Free!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28227453</id>
	<title>I don't get this.</title>
	<author>DeVilla</author>
	<datestamp>1244195640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wait.  This is the FSFE.  They have something to do with the FSF, right?
<p><div class="quote"><p>We should realize that what divides us pales in comparison to what we have in common and that division and exclusion are harmful to us all. <b>So we should reign in the name-callers on either side</b>, and empower those people who know how to build cooperation, corporations, and positive feedback loops.</p></div><p>
Ok.  You first.  Muzzle Richard and get back to us on how well that goes.
</p><p>
Thanks</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait .
This is the FSFE .
They have something to do with the FSF , right ?
We should realize that what divides us pales in comparison to what we have in common and that division and exclusion are harmful to us all .
So we should reign in the name-callers on either side , and empower those people who know how to build cooperation , corporations , and positive feedback loops .
Ok. You first .
Muzzle Richard and get back to us on how well that goes .
Thanks</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait.
This is the FSFE.
They have something to do with the FSF, right?
We should realize that what divides us pales in comparison to what we have in common and that division and exclusion are harmful to us all.
So we should reign in the name-callers on either side, and empower those people who know how to build cooperation, corporations, and positive feedback loops.
Ok.  You first.
Muzzle Richard and get back to us on how well that goes.
Thanks
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225821</id>
	<title>Re:The Meaning Of "Free"</title>
	<author>Fri13</author>
	<datestamp>1244230080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Libre Software!</p><p>Free Sofware is Free, even that Free can mean the freedom, like as well the free price.</p><p>But Libre, is what just can not be mistaken to price.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Libre Software ! Free Sofware is Free , even that Free can mean the freedom , like as well the free price.But Libre , is what just can not be mistaken to price .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Libre Software!Free Sofware is Free, even that Free can mean the freedom, like as well the free price.But Libre, is what just can not be mistaken to price.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225187</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225739</id>
	<title>Re:The Meaning Of "Free"</title>
	<author>againjj</author>
	<datestamp>1244229720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"Open Software".</p></div><p>
Interesting.  I think that would better imply the proper meaning than "Open Source Software", which to the average person means that the source is available for viewing.
</p><p>
P.S. He talked about "Open Source Software", which is why this stuck out.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Open Software " .
Interesting. I think that would better imply the proper meaning than " Open Source Software " , which to the average person means that the source is available for viewing .
P.S. He talked about " Open Source Software " , which is why this stuck out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Open Software".
Interesting.  I think that would better imply the proper meaning than "Open Source Software", which to the average person means that the source is available for viewing.
P.S. He talked about "Open Source Software", which is why this stuck out.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225187</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225111</id>
	<title>Pfah.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244226960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Refrain from name-calling? What an idiot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Refrain from name-calling ?
What an idiot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Refrain from name-calling?
What an idiot.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225193</id>
	<title>why does open source need marketing?</title>
	<author>convolvatron</author>
	<datestamp>1244227320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>unless you belong to an open source organization, it doesn't seem at all clear<br>that open source as a concept needs to maintain 'branding' at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>unless you belong to an open source organization , it does n't seem at all clearthat open source as a concept needs to maintain 'branding ' at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>unless you belong to an open source organization, it doesn't seem at all clearthat open source as a concept needs to maintain 'branding' at all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225289</id>
	<title>Okies</title>
	<author>Narpak</author>
	<datestamp>1244227740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But instead of focussing on past insults and wrongs, I believe our focus should be on the future. We should realize that what divides us pales in comparison to what we have in common and that division and exclusion are harmful to us all.</p></div><p>I guess I agree with him in this. There are people on all sides of these issues that are far too concerned about being right and preaching their "Right Way". Name calling and other childish behaviour is counter-productive. What is needed is good debate on the issues and without ad hominem attacks that only detract and distract.<br> <br>
That being said my feeling is that those that idolizes various ways of distributing, publishing or retail of software is becoming increasingly marginalized; which is a good thing. Dogmatic subscription to an ideology is always a powerful activator for the Us Vs Them instinct that seems to run through so much of our public debates and arguments.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But instead of focussing on past insults and wrongs , I believe our focus should be on the future .
We should realize that what divides us pales in comparison to what we have in common and that division and exclusion are harmful to us all.I guess I agree with him in this .
There are people on all sides of these issues that are far too concerned about being right and preaching their " Right Way " .
Name calling and other childish behaviour is counter-productive .
What is needed is good debate on the issues and without ad hominem attacks that only detract and distract .
That being said my feeling is that those that idolizes various ways of distributing , publishing or retail of software is becoming increasingly marginalized ; which is a good thing .
Dogmatic subscription to an ideology is always a powerful activator for the Us Vs Them instinct that seems to run through so much of our public debates and arguments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But instead of focussing on past insults and wrongs, I believe our focus should be on the future.
We should realize that what divides us pales in comparison to what we have in common and that division and exclusion are harmful to us all.I guess I agree with him in this.
There are people on all sides of these issues that are far too concerned about being right and preaching their "Right Way".
Name calling and other childish behaviour is counter-productive.
What is needed is good debate on the issues and without ad hominem attacks that only detract and distract.
That being said my feeling is that those that idolizes various ways of distributing, publishing or retail of software is becoming increasingly marginalized; which is a good thing.
Dogmatic subscription to an ideology is always a powerful activator for the Us Vs Them instinct that seems to run through so much of our public debates and arguments.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225865</id>
	<title>Bruce Perens' take</title>
	<author>CarpetShark</author>
	<datestamp>1244230320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think it's pretty clear what RMS would say, and (hopefully) why.</p><p>What's more interesting is Bruce Perens' take on it.  Bruce founded the Open Source Institute with Eric S. Raymond, but Bruce himself has stated that "it's time to talk about Free Software again" as opposed to Open Source, due to the unintended conceptual dilution that Open Source has been exposed to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it 's pretty clear what RMS would say , and ( hopefully ) why.What 's more interesting is Bruce Perens ' take on it .
Bruce founded the Open Source Institute with Eric S. Raymond , but Bruce himself has stated that " it 's time to talk about Free Software again " as opposed to Open Source , due to the unintended conceptual dilution that Open Source has been exposed to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it's pretty clear what RMS would say, and (hopefully) why.What's more interesting is Bruce Perens' take on it.
Bruce founded the Open Source Institute with Eric S. Raymond, but Bruce himself has stated that "it's time to talk about Free Software again" as opposed to Open Source, due to the unintended conceptual dilution that Open Source has been exposed to.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225245</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28227617</id>
	<title>Re:The Meaning Of "Free"</title>
	<author>rackserverdeals</author>
	<datestamp>1244196780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think it's more than just the brand. It's also the marketing. Saying "free as in freedom, not free as in beer" turns off a lot of potential customers because their proprietary software vendors provide them with free beer and strippers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it 's more than just the brand .
It 's also the marketing .
Saying " free as in freedom , not free as in beer " turns off a lot of potential customers because their proprietary software vendors provide them with free beer and strippers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it's more than just the brand.
It's also the marketing.
Saying "free as in freedom, not free as in beer" turns off a lot of potential customers because their proprietary software vendors provide them with free beer and strippers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225187</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225841</id>
	<title>Re:False Premise</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244230200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Open source is a random barbarian horde of software developers.</p></div><p>Form wikipedia:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>A brand is a collection of experiences and associations connected with a service, a person or any other entity.</p></div><p>As barbarians had its brand (loot, pillage and scoff off), so does F/OSS. It is associated with security, no-virus, gratis, hard-to-administer, BSA safe and whatnot.</p><p>In eyes of non-believers we are one, we are legion.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Open source is a random barbarian horde of software developers.Form wikipedia : A brand is a collection of experiences and associations connected with a service , a person or any other entity.As barbarians had its brand ( loot , pillage and scoff off ) , so does F/OSS .
It is associated with security , no-virus , gratis , hard-to-administer , BSA safe and whatnot.In eyes of non-believers we are one , we are legion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Open source is a random barbarian horde of software developers.Form wikipedia:A brand is a collection of experiences and associations connected with a service, a person or any other entity.As barbarians had its brand (loot, pillage and scoff off), so does F/OSS.
It is associated with security, no-virus, gratis, hard-to-administer, BSA safe and whatnot.In eyes of non-believers we are one, we are legion.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225407</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225441</id>
	<title>Re:Okies</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244228520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Except no on hears the name calling other than people like Greve. I don't hear it, because I'm not involved in it.
<br> <br>
And since the large majority of people that use open source are also not involved in it, fixing it won't necessarily translate into additional users.
<br> <br>
The two main reasons that companies I have worked in don't use open source software is either because they want a paid technician on the other end of the phone, or it was felt the quality wasn't as good.
<br> <br>
I suggest Mr. Greve expend his energy on overcoming those two issues if he wants to expand the acceptance of open source software. One only has to wade through the mountains of crap on SourceForge to question whether it is worth the effort to search for the good stuff that surpasses commercial options, or just go buy something.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Except no on hears the name calling other than people like Greve .
I do n't hear it , because I 'm not involved in it .
And since the large majority of people that use open source are also not involved in it , fixing it wo n't necessarily translate into additional users .
The two main reasons that companies I have worked in do n't use open source software is either because they want a paid technician on the other end of the phone , or it was felt the quality was n't as good .
I suggest Mr. Greve expend his energy on overcoming those two issues if he wants to expand the acceptance of open source software .
One only has to wade through the mountains of crap on SourceForge to question whether it is worth the effort to search for the good stuff that surpasses commercial options , or just go buy something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except no on hears the name calling other than people like Greve.
I don't hear it, because I'm not involved in it.
And since the large majority of people that use open source are also not involved in it, fixing it won't necessarily translate into additional users.
The two main reasons that companies I have worked in don't use open source software is either because they want a paid technician on the other end of the phone, or it was felt the quality wasn't as good.
I suggest Mr. Greve expend his energy on overcoming those two issues if he wants to expand the acceptance of open source software.
One only has to wade through the mountains of crap on SourceForge to question whether it is worth the effort to search for the good stuff that surpasses commercial options, or just go buy something.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225289</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225667</id>
	<title>Re:One should never RTFA, indeed ...</title>
	<author>Brandybuck</author>
	<datestamp>1244229480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why stop? For someone associated with the FSF to finally speak the truth on this matter is delightfully refreshing. There is no substantive difference between Free Software and Open Source Software. Yeah, you might be able to find some inconsequential differences that do not apply to any actual software, but that only proves the point of it not being substantive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why stop ?
For someone associated with the FSF to finally speak the truth on this matter is delightfully refreshing .
There is no substantive difference between Free Software and Open Source Software .
Yeah , you might be able to find some inconsequential differences that do not apply to any actual software , but that only proves the point of it not being substantive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why stop?
For someone associated with the FSF to finally speak the truth on this matter is delightfully refreshing.
There is no substantive difference between Free Software and Open Source Software.
Yeah, you might be able to find some inconsequential differences that do not apply to any actual software, but that only proves the point of it not being substantive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225179</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225179</id>
	<title>One should never RTFA, indeed ...</title>
	<author>foobsr</author>
	<datestamp>1244227260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>From TFA: "One is to believe there was a substantial difference in the software referred to by the terms "Free Software" and "Open Source." There isn't."
<br> <br>
This was when I stopped.
<br> <br>
CC.</htmltext>
<tokenext>From TFA : " One is to believe there was a substantial difference in the software referred to by the terms " Free Software " and " Open Source .
" There is n't .
" This was when I stopped .
CC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From TFA: "One is to believe there was a substantial difference in the software referred to by the terms "Free Software" and "Open Source.
" There isn't.
"
 
This was when I stopped.
CC.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28227255</id>
	<title>Re:Pfah.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244194260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow- this article reads like an Obama speech.  Coincidence?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow- this article reads like an Obama speech .
Coincidence ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow- this article reads like an Obama speech.
Coincidence?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225111</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225473</id>
	<title>Branding</title>
	<author>Maximum Prophet</author>
	<datestamp>1244228640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Branding is what corporations use to add perceived value to merchandise.  People will pay more for "Disney" brand shoes than the same shoe with "Bob" brand.  Disney might not even sell the shoe, Bob may have paid Disney for use of it's brand.
<br>
Alternately, Bob could make better shoes to add value to it's shoes.  Unfortunately,  the consumer can't always see this value.  People won't pay more for unperceived value.  Unless Bob wants to build his brand as a high quality product, he can make more money paying Disney for their logo
<br> <br>
 This would be difficult to apply to "Free Software", because there's so much of it out there, of mixed quality.  If it ever took off, and people began associating "Free Software" with quality, anyone could misappropriate the brand, and it's perceived value would fall.
<br> <br>
A new brand is in order.  Something like LibertySoft(tm)  or FSFsoft(tm) that would apply to projects that met certain levels of quality and had a free enough license.   Some organization like the FSF would have to own the trademark, and police misuses of the brand.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Branding is what corporations use to add perceived value to merchandise .
People will pay more for " Disney " brand shoes than the same shoe with " Bob " brand .
Disney might not even sell the shoe , Bob may have paid Disney for use of it 's brand .
Alternately , Bob could make better shoes to add value to it 's shoes .
Unfortunately , the consumer ca n't always see this value .
People wo n't pay more for unperceived value .
Unless Bob wants to build his brand as a high quality product , he can make more money paying Disney for their logo This would be difficult to apply to " Free Software " , because there 's so much of it out there , of mixed quality .
If it ever took off , and people began associating " Free Software " with quality , anyone could misappropriate the brand , and it 's perceived value would fall .
A new brand is in order .
Something like LibertySoft ( tm ) or FSFsoft ( tm ) that would apply to projects that met certain levels of quality and had a free enough license .
Some organization like the FSF would have to own the trademark , and police misuses of the brand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Branding is what corporations use to add perceived value to merchandise.
People will pay more for "Disney" brand shoes than the same shoe with "Bob" brand.
Disney might not even sell the shoe, Bob may have paid Disney for use of it's brand.
Alternately, Bob could make better shoes to add value to it's shoes.
Unfortunately,  the consumer can't always see this value.
People won't pay more for unperceived value.
Unless Bob wants to build his brand as a high quality product, he can make more money paying Disney for their logo
 
 This would be difficult to apply to "Free Software", because there's so much of it out there, of mixed quality.
If it ever took off, and people began associating "Free Software" with quality, anyone could misappropriate the brand, and it's perceived value would fall.
A new brand is in order.
Something like LibertySoft(tm)  or FSFsoft(tm) that would apply to projects that met certain levels of quality and had a free enough license.
Some organization like the FSF would have to own the trademark, and police misuses of the brand.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28229509</id>
	<title>That's not a violation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244214240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>GPL only requires you to provide source to those you have provided software. There is no requirement to offer it to the public. It's funny you sounded like you knew what you were talking about by citing a specific clause. But you goofed anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>GPL only requires you to provide source to those you have provided software .
There is no requirement to offer it to the public .
It 's funny you sounded like you knew what you were talking about by citing a specific clause .
But you goofed anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>GPL only requires you to provide source to those you have provided software.
There is no requirement to offer it to the public.
It's funny you sounded like you knew what you were talking about by citing a specific clause.
But you goofed anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225125</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225585</id>
	<title>Re:One should never RTFA, indeed ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244229120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok, I'll bite.</p><p>The OSI and FSF license criteria are more or less identical. Or at least they were the last time I tried to compare them.</p><p>Aside from the actual code, the licenses would form the substance of the movement, no?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , I 'll bite.The OSI and FSF license criteria are more or less identical .
Or at least they were the last time I tried to compare them.Aside from the actual code , the licenses would form the substance of the movement , no ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, I'll bite.The OSI and FSF license criteria are more or less identical.
Or at least they were the last time I tried to compare them.Aside from the actual code, the licenses would form the substance of the movement, no?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225179</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28227783</id>
	<title>Free software politics and opensource politics</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244197860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Both are equally dirty in their own richly varied ways.</p><p>In the first case, you get roughed up by bearded towering personalities.<br>In the second case, you get cheated by balding influential technocrats who claim to have reinvented computing and databases.</p><p>Hackers have long memories. And, it works both ways.</p><p>Of course false enemies and false friends alternate swiftly too.<br>As the wise ancients say "Rich and varied complexity called life".<br>Hence, a burnt child dreads the fire. Once burnt twice shy, twice burnt silent cry.<br>The place is simply too hostile in almost every case.</p><p>What is a newcomer, all fired up and ready to work supposed to do, when the movement is lead by a cannibalistic Hydra?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Both are equally dirty in their own richly varied ways.In the first case , you get roughed up by bearded towering personalities.In the second case , you get cheated by balding influential technocrats who claim to have reinvented computing and databases.Hackers have long memories .
And , it works both ways.Of course false enemies and false friends alternate swiftly too.As the wise ancients say " Rich and varied complexity called life " .Hence , a burnt child dreads the fire .
Once burnt twice shy , twice burnt silent cry.The place is simply too hostile in almost every case.What is a newcomer , all fired up and ready to work supposed to do , when the movement is lead by a cannibalistic Hydra ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Both are equally dirty in their own richly varied ways.In the first case, you get roughed up by bearded towering personalities.In the second case, you get cheated by balding influential technocrats who claim to have reinvented computing and databases.Hackers have long memories.
And, it works both ways.Of course false enemies and false friends alternate swiftly too.As the wise ancients say "Rich and varied complexity called life".Hence, a burnt child dreads the fire.
Once burnt twice shy, twice burnt silent cry.The place is simply too hostile in almost every case.What is a newcomer, all fired up and ready to work supposed to do, when the movement is lead by a cannibalistic Hydra?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28229849</id>
	<title>Re:And what would that brand teach people?</title>
	<author>petrus4</author>
	<datestamp>1244218680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>Then let's hope the Open Source Initiative's days of calling free software<br>activism "ideological tub-thumping" are behind them. I don't see branding as a<br>means of teaching people about software freedom (the very thing the OSI<br>doesn't talk about in their belief that businesses don't want to hear about<br>user's freedoms), but I'm happy to learn about branding efforts that<br>explicitly teach people about supporting software freedom for its own sake and<br>defending it for future generations so as to build and maintain social<br>solidarity.</i> </p><p>You go on to talk about how great the FSF's comparitive "Free Software/Open<br>Source," essay is.</p><p>While I'm never going to try and argue with anyone that ethics aren't<br>important, there is a sad fact here which the FSF itself doesn't want to<br>acknowledge; and that is that focusing on ethics as a primary argument with<br>most people quite simply is not going to work.</p><p>This is one of the main problems which Stallman as an individual, and<br>subsequently the FSF as an organisation, has; the fact that they are entirely<br>unwilling to adapt their methodology to what <i>will</i> work, in the event<br>that their unsuccessful methodology is simply closer to their existing belief<br>system.  The FSF doesn't try and create common ground between what it believes<br>in and what other people want; it simply rejects what anyone else wants and<br>tries to shove its' views down other people's throats, whether they are in<br>fact willing to accept them or not.</p><p>The point of the approach described by Eric Raymond and a few other people, is<br>not actually to lose sight of the cause <b>at all</b>, but to <b>initially</b> <br>allow the effects to stand on their own as tangible manifestations of the<br>cause.  The effects (technically superior software) can then be seen as<br>tangible byproducts of the cause, and once you have that, <b>then</b> you've<br>got some chance of being able to explain to people that said effects are the<br>result of adhering to solid ethical principles.  Solid principles are<br>important everywhere, yes; both inside software development and outside it.</p><p>It's film screenwriting 101, though; when producing a film for a general<br>audience, the first thing you do at the start of it is an action scene in<br>order to hold interest.  Once you've captured interest, exposition can (and<br>should) immediately follow; but if you don't capture interest, you're very<br>likely to be ignored.</p><p>Neurotypical superficiality really sucks; I will admit it as freely as anyone.<br>However, as much as it might suck, it's also an unavoidable fact of life; it's<br>not going away.  The only thing ignoring it or resisting it is going to do is<br>get us ignored.  We have to figure out how to go <b>through</b> it in order to<br>get our message heard; and it really is not all that difficult.</p><p>Use Compiz Fusion, and other related things.  Generate some pretty lights, and<br>make tangible displays of how technically superior Open Source is to anything<br>from Microsoft.</p><p>Neurotypicals demand that, and they're as uncompromising in their demand for<br>it as Stallman is in his rhetoric.  The reason why is because their defining<br>neurological characteristic, in many cases, is being right brained.  Hence,<br>they <b>need</b> to see graphical representations of things, because that's how they<br>communicate.  Most of us, on the other hand, are left brained; so we can sit<br>and talk about ethical abstractions for hours on end and not have a problem<br>with it; no visual imagery anywhere in sight.</p><p>This is also the exact reason why I can sit here with nothing but ratpoison,<br>vim, and Vimperator with Firefox, when they <b>need</b> GNOME, a Start menu,<br>and Nautilus/Konqueror.  The CLI scares the hell out of them because it<br>literally isn't how their brain primarily functions.</p><p>If the FSF wants to be genuinely useful, it needs to figure out how to<br>communicate with the neurotypical population on their own terms.  <b>That</b> <br>is exact</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then let 's hope the Open Source Initiative 's days of calling free softwareactivism " ideological tub-thumping " are behind them .
I do n't see branding as ameans of teaching people about software freedom ( the very thing the OSIdoes n't talk about in their belief that businesses do n't want to hear aboutuser 's freedoms ) , but I 'm happy to learn about branding efforts thatexplicitly teach people about supporting software freedom for its own sake anddefending it for future generations so as to build and maintain socialsolidarity .
You go on to talk about how great the FSF 's comparitive " Free Software/OpenSource , " essay is.While I 'm never going to try and argue with anyone that ethics aren'timportant , there is a sad fact here which the FSF itself does n't want toacknowledge ; and that is that focusing on ethics as a primary argument withmost people quite simply is not going to work.This is one of the main problems which Stallman as an individual , andsubsequently the FSF as an organisation , has ; the fact that they are entirelyunwilling to adapt their methodology to what will work , in the eventthat their unsuccessful methodology is simply closer to their existing beliefsystem .
The FSF does n't try and create common ground between what it believesin and what other people want ; it simply rejects what anyone else wants andtries to shove its ' views down other people 's throats , whether they are infact willing to accept them or not.The point of the approach described by Eric Raymond and a few other people , isnot actually to lose sight of the cause at all , but to initially allow the effects to stand on their own as tangible manifestations of thecause .
The effects ( technically superior software ) can then be seen astangible byproducts of the cause , and once you have that , then you'vegot some chance of being able to explain to people that said effects are theresult of adhering to solid ethical principles .
Solid principles areimportant everywhere , yes ; both inside software development and outside it.It 's film screenwriting 101 , though ; when producing a film for a generalaudience , the first thing you do at the start of it is an action scene inorder to hold interest .
Once you 've captured interest , exposition can ( andshould ) immediately follow ; but if you do n't capture interest , you 're verylikely to be ignored.Neurotypical superficiality really sucks ; I will admit it as freely as anyone.However , as much as it might suck , it 's also an unavoidable fact of life ; it'snot going away .
The only thing ignoring it or resisting it is going to do isget us ignored .
We have to figure out how to go through it in order toget our message heard ; and it really is not all that difficult.Use Compiz Fusion , and other related things .
Generate some pretty lights , andmake tangible displays of how technically superior Open Source is to anythingfrom Microsoft.Neurotypicals demand that , and they 're as uncompromising in their demand forit as Stallman is in his rhetoric .
The reason why is because their definingneurological characteristic , in many cases , is being right brained .
Hence,they need to see graphical representations of things , because that 's how theycommunicate .
Most of us , on the other hand , are left brained ; so we can sitand talk about ethical abstractions for hours on end and not have a problemwith it ; no visual imagery anywhere in sight.This is also the exact reason why I can sit here with nothing but ratpoison,vim , and Vimperator with Firefox , when they need GNOME , a Start menu,and Nautilus/Konqueror .
The CLI scares the hell out of them because itliterally is n't how their brain primarily functions.If the FSF wants to be genuinely useful , it needs to figure out how tocommunicate with the neurotypical population on their own terms .
That is exact</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Then let's hope the Open Source Initiative's days of calling free softwareactivism "ideological tub-thumping" are behind them.
I don't see branding as ameans of teaching people about software freedom (the very thing the OSIdoesn't talk about in their belief that businesses don't want to hear aboutuser's freedoms), but I'm happy to learn about branding efforts thatexplicitly teach people about supporting software freedom for its own sake anddefending it for future generations so as to build and maintain socialsolidarity.
You go on to talk about how great the FSF's comparitive "Free Software/OpenSource," essay is.While I'm never going to try and argue with anyone that ethics aren'timportant, there is a sad fact here which the FSF itself doesn't want toacknowledge; and that is that focusing on ethics as a primary argument withmost people quite simply is not going to work.This is one of the main problems which Stallman as an individual, andsubsequently the FSF as an organisation, has; the fact that they are entirelyunwilling to adapt their methodology to what will work, in the eventthat their unsuccessful methodology is simply closer to their existing beliefsystem.
The FSF doesn't try and create common ground between what it believesin and what other people want; it simply rejects what anyone else wants andtries to shove its' views down other people's throats, whether they are infact willing to accept them or not.The point of the approach described by Eric Raymond and a few other people, isnot actually to lose sight of the cause at all, but to initially allow the effects to stand on their own as tangible manifestations of thecause.
The effects (technically superior software) can then be seen astangible byproducts of the cause, and once you have that, then you'vegot some chance of being able to explain to people that said effects are theresult of adhering to solid ethical principles.
Solid principles areimportant everywhere, yes; both inside software development and outside it.It's film screenwriting 101, though; when producing a film for a generalaudience, the first thing you do at the start of it is an action scene inorder to hold interest.
Once you've captured interest, exposition can (andshould) immediately follow; but if you don't capture interest, you're verylikely to be ignored.Neurotypical superficiality really sucks; I will admit it as freely as anyone.However, as much as it might suck, it's also an unavoidable fact of life; it'snot going away.
The only thing ignoring it or resisting it is going to do isget us ignored.
We have to figure out how to go through it in order toget our message heard; and it really is not all that difficult.Use Compiz Fusion, and other related things.
Generate some pretty lights, andmake tangible displays of how technically superior Open Source is to anythingfrom Microsoft.Neurotypicals demand that, and they're as uncompromising in their demand forit as Stallman is in his rhetoric.
The reason why is because their definingneurological characteristic, in many cases, is being right brained.
Hence,they need to see graphical representations of things, because that's how theycommunicate.
Most of us, on the other hand, are left brained; so we can sitand talk about ethical abstractions for hours on end and not have a problemwith it; no visual imagery anywhere in sight.This is also the exact reason why I can sit here with nothing but ratpoison,vim, and Vimperator with Firefox, when they need GNOME, a Start menu,and Nautilus/Konqueror.
The CLI scares the hell out of them because itliterally isn't how their brain primarily functions.If the FSF wants to be genuinely useful, it needs to figure out how tocommunicate with the neurotypical population on their own terms.
That is exact</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225519</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225665</id>
	<title>Re:Pfah.</title>
	<author>PrescriptionWarning</author>
	<datestamp>1244229480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.scummbar.com/community/games/swordfighting/index.php" title="scummbar.com">How appropriate, you fight like a cow!</a> [scummbar.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>How appropriate , you fight like a cow !
[ scummbar.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How appropriate, you fight like a cow!
[scummbar.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225111</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225755</id>
	<title>I don't think they're the same...</title>
	<author>Qubit</author>
	<datestamp>1244229780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Look at the <a href="http://opensource.org/docs/osd" title="opensource.org">Open Source Definition</a> [opensource.org] and compare that with the <a href="http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/free-sw.html" title="fsf.org">Free Software Definition</a> [fsf.org]. I'm using the definitions from OSI and the FSF because, for all intents and purposes, I think that they have a reasonable claim on defining the corresponding term.</p><p>There are some licenses that are <a href="http://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical" title="opensource.org">OSI-certified</a> [opensource.org] but <a href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#NonFreeSoftwareLicense" title="gnu.org">not Free Software Licenses</a> [gnu.org] (according to the FSF). These include:</p><p>* The NASA Open Source Agreement, version 1.3<br>* The Reciprocal Public License</p><p>I'm also a bit wary of this part of the OSD:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in modified form only if the license allows the distribution of "patch files" with the source code for the purpose of modifying the program at build time.</p></div><p>So that's saying that a license could be Open Source and not allow the distribution of patched files? That seems like a bizarre restriction. Their explanation doesn't really sell me:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Rationale: Encouraging lots of improvement is a good thing, but users have a right to know who is responsible for the software they are using. Authors and maintainers have reciprocal right to know what they're being asked to support and protect their reputations.</p><p>Accordingly, an open-source license must guarantee that source be readily available, but may require that it be distributed as pristine base sources plus patches. In this way, "unofficial" changes can be made available but readily distinguished from the base source.</p></div><p>The problems with this is that "distribution" can mean any conveyance. So that could mean that to install a program under such a license on a system, you might be required to patch and then compile the code on the actual device. Woe betide anyone who distributes code cross-compiled for a very low power handheld device that doesn't have much in the way of dev tools or system resources. Forget about checking your patched files into a publicly-accessible repository. And if you want to have a web viewer to look at the code, you better be using client-side javascript to do the patching or face the prospect of being in violation of "distribution" laws when you send a pre-patched filed across the Intertubes from your server to the user's browser.</p><p>It makes perfect sense to say "If you change this, you can't use our official name for it." I mean, if you bought a can of vegetarian beans and mixed in beef fat, you couldn't just turn around and sell it with the original packaging as you'd be misrepresenting the product. Similarly, if you take the MediaWiki codebase and mix in a few lines of your own code you can't tell people it's stock MediaWiki code. You can tell people that it's based on that codebase, or that you've only change 10 lines, or any other factual statement, but you can't misrepresent the item.</p><p>A much more sane rule (which is perhaps still too restrictive for Free Software) would be to request that distributors of modified code offer people the ability to see the diffs <em>as well as</em> the final (changed) code. That way you could take any code and change it and distribute it, but if a user asked for it, you'd need to show them the diffs between what you got from upstream and the changes you made. This would be especially important if the upstream distribution point disappears. For most FOSS projects today, people are using distributed version control like Git, Mercurial, Bazaar, etc... , so anyone can trivially get the diffs by just checking out the repo and looking at the patches.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Look at the Open Source Definition [ opensource.org ] and compare that with the Free Software Definition [ fsf.org ] .
I 'm using the definitions from OSI and the FSF because , for all intents and purposes , I think that they have a reasonable claim on defining the corresponding term.There are some licenses that are OSI-certified [ opensource.org ] but not Free Software Licenses [ gnu.org ] ( according to the FSF ) .
These include : * The NASA Open Source Agreement , version 1.3 * The Reciprocal Public LicenseI 'm also a bit wary of this part of the OSD : The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in modified form only if the license allows the distribution of " patch files " with the source code for the purpose of modifying the program at build time.So that 's saying that a license could be Open Source and not allow the distribution of patched files ?
That seems like a bizarre restriction .
Their explanation does n't really sell me : Rationale : Encouraging lots of improvement is a good thing , but users have a right to know who is responsible for the software they are using .
Authors and maintainers have reciprocal right to know what they 're being asked to support and protect their reputations.Accordingly , an open-source license must guarantee that source be readily available , but may require that it be distributed as pristine base sources plus patches .
In this way , " unofficial " changes can be made available but readily distinguished from the base source.The problems with this is that " distribution " can mean any conveyance .
So that could mean that to install a program under such a license on a system , you might be required to patch and then compile the code on the actual device .
Woe betide anyone who distributes code cross-compiled for a very low power handheld device that does n't have much in the way of dev tools or system resources .
Forget about checking your patched files into a publicly-accessible repository .
And if you want to have a web viewer to look at the code , you better be using client-side javascript to do the patching or face the prospect of being in violation of " distribution " laws when you send a pre-patched filed across the Intertubes from your server to the user 's browser.It makes perfect sense to say " If you change this , you ca n't use our official name for it .
" I mean , if you bought a can of vegetarian beans and mixed in beef fat , you could n't just turn around and sell it with the original packaging as you 'd be misrepresenting the product .
Similarly , if you take the MediaWiki codebase and mix in a few lines of your own code you ca n't tell people it 's stock MediaWiki code .
You can tell people that it 's based on that codebase , or that you 've only change 10 lines , or any other factual statement , but you ca n't misrepresent the item.A much more sane rule ( which is perhaps still too restrictive for Free Software ) would be to request that distributors of modified code offer people the ability to see the diffs as well as the final ( changed ) code .
That way you could take any code and change it and distribute it , but if a user asked for it , you 'd need to show them the diffs between what you got from upstream and the changes you made .
This would be especially important if the upstream distribution point disappears .
For most FOSS projects today , people are using distributed version control like Git , Mercurial , Bazaar , etc... , so anyone can trivially get the diffs by just checking out the repo and looking at the patches .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look at the Open Source Definition [opensource.org] and compare that with the Free Software Definition [fsf.org].
I'm using the definitions from OSI and the FSF because, for all intents and purposes, I think that they have a reasonable claim on defining the corresponding term.There are some licenses that are OSI-certified [opensource.org] but not Free Software Licenses [gnu.org] (according to the FSF).
These include:* The NASA Open Source Agreement, version 1.3* The Reciprocal Public LicenseI'm also a bit wary of this part of the OSD:The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in modified form only if the license allows the distribution of "patch files" with the source code for the purpose of modifying the program at build time.So that's saying that a license could be Open Source and not allow the distribution of patched files?
That seems like a bizarre restriction.
Their explanation doesn't really sell me:Rationale: Encouraging lots of improvement is a good thing, but users have a right to know who is responsible for the software they are using.
Authors and maintainers have reciprocal right to know what they're being asked to support and protect their reputations.Accordingly, an open-source license must guarantee that source be readily available, but may require that it be distributed as pristine base sources plus patches.
In this way, "unofficial" changes can be made available but readily distinguished from the base source.The problems with this is that "distribution" can mean any conveyance.
So that could mean that to install a program under such a license on a system, you might be required to patch and then compile the code on the actual device.
Woe betide anyone who distributes code cross-compiled for a very low power handheld device that doesn't have much in the way of dev tools or system resources.
Forget about checking your patched files into a publicly-accessible repository.
And if you want to have a web viewer to look at the code, you better be using client-side javascript to do the patching or face the prospect of being in violation of "distribution" laws when you send a pre-patched filed across the Intertubes from your server to the user's browser.It makes perfect sense to say "If you change this, you can't use our official name for it.
" I mean, if you bought a can of vegetarian beans and mixed in beef fat, you couldn't just turn around and sell it with the original packaging as you'd be misrepresenting the product.
Similarly, if you take the MediaWiki codebase and mix in a few lines of your own code you can't tell people it's stock MediaWiki code.
You can tell people that it's based on that codebase, or that you've only change 10 lines, or any other factual statement, but you can't misrepresent the item.A much more sane rule (which is perhaps still too restrictive for Free Software) would be to request that distributors of modified code offer people the ability to see the diffs as well as the final (changed) code.
That way you could take any code and change it and distribute it, but if a user asked for it, you'd need to show them the diffs between what you got from upstream and the changes you made.
This would be especially important if the upstream distribution point disappears.
For most FOSS projects today, people are using distributed version control like Git, Mercurial, Bazaar, etc... , so anyone can trivially get the diffs by just checking out the repo and looking at the patches.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225187</id>
	<title>The Meaning Of "Free"</title>
	<author>Rary</author>
	<datestamp>1244227320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Although he insists that there's no difference between "Free Software" and "Open Software", he needs to realize that he won't get far in truly creating a "brand", which he also refers to as "anyone's gut feeling", using a word that the majority of those "anyone"s out there have a "gut feeling" means something other than what he intends it to mean.</p><p>To anyone who is not part of the F/OSS movement, "free software" means software that doesn't cost anything, and it always will. Don't try to change people's perception of words to match what your product is, change the words you use to steer people's perception of the product. If it's freedom you want to communicate, then do it with the word "freedom", or the word "open", or something similar, but not "free", which, when placed in front of a product (such as "software"), always implies "zero dollars" to the rest of the world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Although he insists that there 's no difference between " Free Software " and " Open Software " , he needs to realize that he wo n't get far in truly creating a " brand " , which he also refers to as " anyone 's gut feeling " , using a word that the majority of those " anyone " s out there have a " gut feeling " means something other than what he intends it to mean.To anyone who is not part of the F/OSS movement , " free software " means software that does n't cost anything , and it always will .
Do n't try to change people 's perception of words to match what your product is , change the words you use to steer people 's perception of the product .
If it 's freedom you want to communicate , then do it with the word " freedom " , or the word " open " , or something similar , but not " free " , which , when placed in front of a product ( such as " software " ) , always implies " zero dollars " to the rest of the world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Although he insists that there's no difference between "Free Software" and "Open Software", he needs to realize that he won't get far in truly creating a "brand", which he also refers to as "anyone's gut feeling", using a word that the majority of those "anyone"s out there have a "gut feeling" means something other than what he intends it to mean.To anyone who is not part of the F/OSS movement, "free software" means software that doesn't cost anything, and it always will.
Don't try to change people's perception of words to match what your product is, change the words you use to steer people's perception of the product.
If it's freedom you want to communicate, then do it with the word "freedom", or the word "open", or something similar, but not "free", which, when placed in front of a product (such as "software"), always implies "zero dollars" to the rest of the world.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28293569</id>
	<title>Libre Vs Open</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244734260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"There are plenty of false enemies to go around. Ironically, the most common form of false enemy is found around the animosity that has built around branding and framing issues, more specifically in the area of 'Free Software' vs 'Open Source.' Name-calling and quarreling on either side is not helpful, and serves to hide the common base and interest in having a strong brand and powerful message.</p></div><p>I personally got victimised thanks to the free/libre vs open source .

<a href="http://www.swecha.org/node/12" title="swecha.org" rel="nofollow">Free Software Foundation Andhra pradesh </a> [swecha.org] has a group of volunteers who were aggressive<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..and stressed rather heavily on the term "free" as in "freedom" which is quite reasonable IMHO but opposing anything "open source" is very bad to the community .
I  belong to andhra pradesh but thanks to FSF AP attitude I was more happy with FSF India as whole who were quite understanding when compared to FSF AP .</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" There are plenty of false enemies to go around .
Ironically , the most common form of false enemy is found around the animosity that has built around branding and framing issues , more specifically in the area of 'Free Software ' vs 'Open Source .
' Name-calling and quarreling on either side is not helpful , and serves to hide the common base and interest in having a strong brand and powerful message.I personally got victimised thanks to the free/libre vs open source .
Free Software Foundation Andhra pradesh [ swecha.org ] has a group of volunteers who were aggressive ..and stressed rather heavily on the term " free " as in " freedom " which is quite reasonable IMHO but opposing anything " open source " is very bad to the community .
I belong to andhra pradesh but thanks to FSF AP attitude I was more happy with FSF India as whole who were quite understanding when compared to FSF AP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"There are plenty of false enemies to go around.
Ironically, the most common form of false enemy is found around the animosity that has built around branding and framing issues, more specifically in the area of 'Free Software' vs 'Open Source.
' Name-calling and quarreling on either side is not helpful, and serves to hide the common base and interest in having a strong brand and powerful message.I personally got victimised thanks to the free/libre vs open source .
Free Software Foundation Andhra pradesh  [swecha.org] has a group of volunteers who were aggressive ..and stressed rather heavily on the term "free" as in "freedom" which is quite reasonable IMHO but opposing anything "open source" is very bad to the community .
I  belong to andhra pradesh but thanks to FSF AP attitude I was more happy with FSF India as whole who were quite understanding when compared to FSF AP .
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225155</id>
	<title>This is the work of the DEVIL</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244227200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am just here to warn you that GOD sayeth that using computors is a SIN and whosoever USES COMPUTORS or especily the INTIRNET shall ROASTE in a LAKE of FURE for ITRNITY! That is why I ABSTANE from intirnets and CUMPUTORS and you should too for GOD IS GREAT and his WORD is mighty and THRU HIM YE SHALL BE SAVID!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am just here to warn you that GOD sayeth that using computors is a SIN and whosoever USES COMPUTORS or especily the INTIRNET shall ROASTE in a LAKE of FURE for ITRNITY !
That is why I ABSTANE from intirnets and CUMPUTORS and you should too for GOD IS GREAT and his WORD is mighty and THRU HIM YE SHALL BE SAVID !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am just here to warn you that GOD sayeth that using computors is a SIN and whosoever USES COMPUTORS or especily the INTIRNET shall ROASTE in a LAKE of FURE for ITRNITY!
That is why I ABSTANE from intirnets and CUMPUTORS and you should too for GOD IS GREAT and his WORD is mighty and THRU HIM YE SHALL BE SAVID!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28229339</id>
	<title>Re:Okies</title>
	<author>AceofSpades19</author>
	<datestamp>1244211900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Except no on hears the name calling other than people like Greve. I don't hear it, because I'm not involved in it.



And since the large majority of people that use open source are also not involved in it, fixing it won't necessarily translate into additional users.



The two main reasons that companies I have worked in don't use open source software is either because they want a paid technician on the other end of the phone, or it was felt the quality wasn't as good.



I suggest Mr. Greve expend his energy on overcoming those two issues if he wants to expand the acceptance of open source software. One only has to wade through the mountains of crap on SourceForge to question whether it is worth the effort to search for the good stuff that surpasses commercial options, or just go buy something.</p></div><p>I suppose you haven't heard of Red Hat, Novell, or IBM, they offer paid support for F/OSS, unless a paid technician means something else</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Except no on hears the name calling other than people like Greve .
I do n't hear it , because I 'm not involved in it .
And since the large majority of people that use open source are also not involved in it , fixing it wo n't necessarily translate into additional users .
The two main reasons that companies I have worked in do n't use open source software is either because they want a paid technician on the other end of the phone , or it was felt the quality was n't as good .
I suggest Mr. Greve expend his energy on overcoming those two issues if he wants to expand the acceptance of open source software .
One only has to wade through the mountains of crap on SourceForge to question whether it is worth the effort to search for the good stuff that surpasses commercial options , or just go buy something.I suppose you have n't heard of Red Hat , Novell , or IBM , they offer paid support for F/OSS , unless a paid technician means something else</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except no on hears the name calling other than people like Greve.
I don't hear it, because I'm not involved in it.
And since the large majority of people that use open source are also not involved in it, fixing it won't necessarily translate into additional users.
The two main reasons that companies I have worked in don't use open source software is either because they want a paid technician on the other end of the phone, or it was felt the quality wasn't as good.
I suggest Mr. Greve expend his energy on overcoming those two issues if he wants to expand the acceptance of open source software.
One only has to wade through the mountains of crap on SourceForge to question whether it is worth the effort to search for the good stuff that surpasses commercial options, or just go buy something.I suppose you haven't heard of Red Hat, Novell, or IBM, they offer paid support for F/OSS, unless a paid technician means something else
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225441</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28227857</id>
	<title>Re:False friends, as well as false enemies</title>
	<author>ComputerSlicer23</author>
	<datestamp>1244198220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Section 3.B:
</p><blockquote><div><p>Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,</p></div> </blockquote><p>
To give <em>any</em> third party, not merely a third party that happens to know my magic number that give me access.
</p><p>
At my company we always choose to satisfy 3.A, because for the cost of handing you the CD with the source code along with our product, the entire transaction is finished, there are no more obligations on either side to provide anything else.
</p><p>
They should be providing a written offer that any third party should be able to show up with to give the source code.  I shouldn't need to know any magic numbers or any other details.  I might have to show up with the original authentic copy of the written offer, but there is not much to quibble about over there.  I have always assumed that I could give the written offer to as many people as I feel like, but I've never seen that clearly established.  Otherwise, subverting the GPL would be fairly trivial.  Once I show up with the original authentic original written offer, I can distribute it to whomever I wish.
</p><p>
Kirby</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Section 3.B : Accompany it with a written offer , valid for at least three years , to give any third party , for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution , a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code , to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange ; or , To give any third party , not merely a third party that happens to know my magic number that give me access .
At my company we always choose to satisfy 3.A , because for the cost of handing you the CD with the source code along with our product , the entire transaction is finished , there are no more obligations on either side to provide anything else .
They should be providing a written offer that any third party should be able to show up with to give the source code .
I should n't need to know any magic numbers or any other details .
I might have to show up with the original authentic copy of the written offer , but there is not much to quibble about over there .
I have always assumed that I could give the written offer to as many people as I feel like , but I 've never seen that clearly established .
Otherwise , subverting the GPL would be fairly trivial .
Once I show up with the original authentic original written offer , I can distribute it to whomever I wish .
Kirby</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Section 3.B:
Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, 
To give any third party, not merely a third party that happens to know my magic number that give me access.
At my company we always choose to satisfy 3.A, because for the cost of handing you the CD with the source code along with our product, the entire transaction is finished, there are no more obligations on either side to provide anything else.
They should be providing a written offer that any third party should be able to show up with to give the source code.
I shouldn't need to know any magic numbers or any other details.
I might have to show up with the original authentic copy of the written offer, but there is not much to quibble about over there.
I have always assumed that I could give the written offer to as many people as I feel like, but I've never seen that clearly established.
Otherwise, subverting the GPL would be fairly trivial.
Once I show up with the original authentic original written offer, I can distribute it to whomever I wish.
Kirby
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28226005</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28231493</id>
	<title>Re:Pfah.</title>
	<author>mrmeval</author>
	<datestamp>1244288040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When people who are frustrated at the trend to create de-featured pablum by Ubuntu/KDE/Gnome/Xorg etal complain and get mocked what reason would I have to help them? Right now the Fedora team has at least added some functionality back. I'm not sure they can add it all back if the trend at creating pablum for the masses continues and the features are not just ripped out but actively prevented from being added back in easily.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When people who are frustrated at the trend to create de-featured pablum by Ubuntu/KDE/Gnome/Xorg etal complain and get mocked what reason would I have to help them ?
Right now the Fedora team has at least added some functionality back .
I 'm not sure they can add it all back if the trend at creating pablum for the masses continues and the features are not just ripped out but actively prevented from being added back in easily .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When people who are frustrated at the trend to create de-featured pablum by Ubuntu/KDE/Gnome/Xorg etal complain and get mocked what reason would I have to help them?
Right now the Fedora team has at least added some functionality back.
I'm not sure they can add it all back if the trend at creating pablum for the masses continues and the features are not just ripped out but actively prevented from being added back in easily.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225111</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28227389</id>
	<title>Re:The Meaning Of "Free"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244195100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://avaxhome.ws/ebooks/eLearning\_book/information\_technologies/Copy\_Rip\_Burn.html" title="avaxhome.ws" rel="nofollow">This book Copy, Rip, Burn: The Politics of Copyleft and Open Source</a> [avaxhome.ws] is interesting regarding this questoin..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This book Copy , Rip , Burn : The Politics of Copyleft and Open Source [ avaxhome.ws ] is interesting regarding this questoin. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This book Copy, Rip, Burn: The Politics of Copyleft and Open Source [avaxhome.ws] is interesting regarding this questoin..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225187</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225525</id>
	<title>Careful!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244228820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who started the bickering over the FS vs OSS terms? None other than Richard Stallman himself. It's his brands he wants promoted at the expense of other brands. There is no Linux, it is instead GNU/Linux. It's not Open Source it's Free Software. He has started both those controversies and continues to fan their flames.</p><p>So be careful with your heresies, or the FSF may excommunicate the FSFE.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who started the bickering over the FS vs OSS terms ?
None other than Richard Stallman himself .
It 's his brands he wants promoted at the expense of other brands .
There is no Linux , it is instead GNU/Linux .
It 's not Open Source it 's Free Software .
He has started both those controversies and continues to fan their flames.So be careful with your heresies , or the FSF may excommunicate the FSFE .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who started the bickering over the FS vs OSS terms?
None other than Richard Stallman himself.
It's his brands he wants promoted at the expense of other brands.
There is no Linux, it is instead GNU/Linux.
It's not Open Source it's Free Software.
He has started both those controversies and continues to fan their flames.So be careful with your heresies, or the FSF may excommunicate the FSFE.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28226985</id>
	<title>Re:Careful!</title>
	<author>ivucica</author>
	<datestamp>1244192820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except "free software" is RMS's <b>original</b> name. He just refused to accept a new name. Although otherwise, your point stands -- it's perhaps harmful that the flames are continuously flamed.</p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...or maybe not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except " free software " is RMS 's original name .
He just refused to accept a new name .
Although otherwise , your point stands -- it 's perhaps harmful that the flames are continuously flamed .
...or maybe not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except "free software" is RMS's original name.
He just refused to accept a new name.
Although otherwise, your point stands -- it's perhaps harmful that the flames are continuously flamed.
...or maybe not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225525</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225547</id>
	<title>Re:FOSS Brand?!</title>
	<author>gbjbaanb</author>
	<datestamp>1244228940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, Linux is a brand (only the fatally jealous calls is GNU/Linux<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:) )</p><p>That's enough to make it a 'known entity' amongst some, if it wasn't branded as such, each distro called themselves something completely unique, then they wouldn't have anywhere near the same amount of effort and support behind them. The fact that each distro can call themselves a Linux distro makes it completely different.</p><p>I don't think we need a single thing to market when having many flavours is quite sufficent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , Linux is a brand ( only the fatally jealous calls is GNU/Linux : ) ) That 's enough to make it a 'known entity ' amongst some , if it was n't branded as such , each distro called themselves something completely unique , then they would n't have anywhere near the same amount of effort and support behind them .
The fact that each distro can call themselves a Linux distro makes it completely different.I do n't think we need a single thing to market when having many flavours is quite sufficent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, Linux is a brand (only the fatally jealous calls is GNU/Linux :) )That's enough to make it a 'known entity' amongst some, if it wasn't branded as such, each distro called themselves something completely unique, then they wouldn't have anywhere near the same amount of effort and support behind them.
The fact that each distro can call themselves a Linux distro makes it completely different.I don't think we need a single thing to market when having many flavours is quite sufficent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225215</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225697</id>
	<title>I have a brand for you:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244229540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>GNU/Freetarded.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>GNU/Freetarded .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>GNU/Freetarded.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225215</id>
	<title>FOSS Brand?!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244227440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think so.  What is a "brand"?  It's a lot of things, but it becomes a unified symbol representing a variety of things to a variety of people.  For some it is a symbol of freedom.  Good.  For some it is a symbol of quality.  Not good!  For some it may represent any number of other things, but the bottom line is that "FOSS Brand" cannot even think to represent or guarantee all things to all people.  Some FOSS projects are good.  Others are not good.  Some were good but are no longer.  Without a central control that says what can or can't carry the brand, the brand itself is at risk of harming everything that carries it.</p><p>I understand what is driving the idea and the idealists driving it.  But not everyone thinks the same and these idealists need to understand and appreciate that fact.  Religious idealists are similar in nature and yet the very ideals themselves become different among idealists.  The Catholic Church split and became the Church of England and the Catholic church.  They weakened the "brand" of Christianity in a sense.  There is more than one branch of Islam as well and yet all sides and factions have moderates and radicals bent on their own individual views some even doing things causes others to say "that's not 'true' [religion]!"</p><p>RMS, not everyone will agree with you and only accept part of your dogma.</p><p>It is good enough that there is F/OSS as opposed to commercial software just as there are atheists and theists.  It does not need further definition than that.  Yet, in order to keep things simple, people do tend to want to put brands an labels on things even when they aren't appropriate.  It is unfortunate and unavoidable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think so .
What is a " brand " ?
It 's a lot of things , but it becomes a unified symbol representing a variety of things to a variety of people .
For some it is a symbol of freedom .
Good. For some it is a symbol of quality .
Not good !
For some it may represent any number of other things , but the bottom line is that " FOSS Brand " can not even think to represent or guarantee all things to all people .
Some FOSS projects are good .
Others are not good .
Some were good but are no longer .
Without a central control that says what can or ca n't carry the brand , the brand itself is at risk of harming everything that carries it.I understand what is driving the idea and the idealists driving it .
But not everyone thinks the same and these idealists need to understand and appreciate that fact .
Religious idealists are similar in nature and yet the very ideals themselves become different among idealists .
The Catholic Church split and became the Church of England and the Catholic church .
They weakened the " brand " of Christianity in a sense .
There is more than one branch of Islam as well and yet all sides and factions have moderates and radicals bent on their own individual views some even doing things causes others to say " that 's not 'true ' [ religion ] !
" RMS , not everyone will agree with you and only accept part of your dogma.It is good enough that there is F/OSS as opposed to commercial software just as there are atheists and theists .
It does not need further definition than that .
Yet , in order to keep things simple , people do tend to want to put brands an labels on things even when they are n't appropriate .
It is unfortunate and unavoidable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think so.
What is a "brand"?
It's a lot of things, but it becomes a unified symbol representing a variety of things to a variety of people.
For some it is a symbol of freedom.
Good.  For some it is a symbol of quality.
Not good!
For some it may represent any number of other things, but the bottom line is that "FOSS Brand" cannot even think to represent or guarantee all things to all people.
Some FOSS projects are good.
Others are not good.
Some were good but are no longer.
Without a central control that says what can or can't carry the brand, the brand itself is at risk of harming everything that carries it.I understand what is driving the idea and the idealists driving it.
But not everyone thinks the same and these idealists need to understand and appreciate that fact.
Religious idealists are similar in nature and yet the very ideals themselves become different among idealists.
The Catholic Church split and became the Church of England and the Catholic church.
They weakened the "brand" of Christianity in a sense.
There is more than one branch of Islam as well and yet all sides and factions have moderates and radicals bent on their own individual views some even doing things causes others to say "that's not 'true' [religion]!
"RMS, not everyone will agree with you and only accept part of your dogma.It is good enough that there is F/OSS as opposed to commercial software just as there are atheists and theists.
It does not need further definition than that.
Yet, in order to keep things simple, people do tend to want to put brands an labels on things even when they aren't appropriate.
It is unfortunate and unavoidable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225461</id>
	<title>The reign in Spain</title>
	<author>Minwee</author>
	<datestamp>1244228580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>So we should reign in the name-callers on either side, and empower those people who know how to build cooperation, corporations, and positive feedback loops.</p></div></blockquote><p>Can we also empower those people who know the difference between the words "reign", meaning the possession of power or authority, and "rein", which is the strap that you use to control a horse?
</p><p>Then maybe we could rein in some of the worst abuses of the English language.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So we should reign in the name-callers on either side , and empower those people who know how to build cooperation , corporations , and positive feedback loops.Can we also empower those people who know the difference between the words " reign " , meaning the possession of power or authority , and " rein " , which is the strap that you use to control a horse ?
Then maybe we could rein in some of the worst abuses of the English language .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So we should reign in the name-callers on either side, and empower those people who know how to build cooperation, corporations, and positive feedback loops.Can we also empower those people who know the difference between the words "reign", meaning the possession of power or authority, and "rein", which is the strap that you use to control a horse?
Then maybe we could rein in some of the worst abuses of the English language.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28231177</id>
	<title>Re:Careful!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244282220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sigh... Dude, <b>please</b> either do get your facts straight or don't post here! Linux came so much later than GNU. Open source came so much later than Free Software. Stallman is the chicken and the egg. Of course you can call a cat a dog but it makes no sense. Think that I was about to apply for a job at FSFE...</p><p>Maybe FSFE should rename to OSIE.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sigh... Dude , please either do get your facts straight or do n't post here !
Linux came so much later than GNU .
Open source came so much later than Free Software .
Stallman is the chicken and the egg .
Of course you can call a cat a dog but it makes no sense .
Think that I was about to apply for a job at FSFE...Maybe FSFE should rename to OSIE .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sigh... Dude, please either do get your facts straight or don't post here!
Linux came so much later than GNU.
Open source came so much later than Free Software.
Stallman is the chicken and the egg.
Of course you can call a cat a dog but it makes no sense.
Think that I was about to apply for a job at FSFE...Maybe FSFE should rename to OSIE.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225525</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28226573</id>
	<title>Re:The Meaning Of "Free"</title>
	<author>skeeto</author>
	<datestamp>1244233860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Although he insists that there's no difference between "Free Software" and "Open Software"</p></div><p>He's saying that there is <i>little</i> difference between the <i>original</i> definition for Open Source and the definition for Free Software, which is true. It's all about context, which is provided by the following paragraph.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Although he insists that there 's no difference between " Free Software " and " Open Software " He 's saying that there is little difference between the original definition for Open Source and the definition for Free Software , which is true .
It 's all about context , which is provided by the following paragraph .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Although he insists that there's no difference between "Free Software" and "Open Software"He's saying that there is little difference between the original definition for Open Source and the definition for Free Software, which is true.
It's all about context, which is provided by the following paragraph.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225187</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225519</id>
	<title>And what would that brand teach people?</title>
	<author>jbn-o</author>
	<datestamp>1244228820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Name-calling and quarrelling on either side is not helpful, and serves to hide the common base and interest in having a strong brand and powerful message.</p></div></blockquote><p>Then let's hope the Open Source Initiative's days of calling free software activism "ideological tub-thumping" are behind them.  I don't see branding as a means of teaching people about software freedom (the very thing the OSI doesn't talk about in their belief that businesses don't want to hear about user's freedoms), but I'm happy to learn about branding efforts that explicitly teach people about supporting software freedom for its own sake and defending it for future generations so as to build and maintain social solidarity.  My experience is that efforts aimed at branding something typically aim for narrow commercial interests: convenience, ease-of-use, and reliability.  These things are not bad but they are insufficient for teaching people to value the freedoms to run, share, and modify computer software; those values were chosen to meet the needs of proprietors&mdash;the people and organizations that don't respect software freedom.</p><p>When it comes to teaching freedom, I don't have the trouble some say they have.  I used to host a call-in radio show talking about free software and related issues.  I didn't have problems explaining the philosophical difference between free software and open source nor did I have objections to playing various talks by people who went into the implications of this philosophical difference.  More recently, I find that the essay "<a href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html" title="gnu.org">Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software</a> [gnu.org]" to be an excellent and not at all insulting essay on the philosophical differences between free software and open source.  One of the essay's points that comes up repeatedly is how people who identify with each movement react in the face of powerful proprietary software.  Open source advocates would go along with the proprietor, free software activists would reject the proprietor and work on something that would do the same job but respect user's software freedoms:</p><blockquote><div><p>The idea of open source is that allowing users to change and redistribute the software will make it more powerful and reliable. But this is not guaranteed. Developers of proprietary software are not necessarily incompetent. Sometimes they produce a program which is powerful and reliable, even though it does not respect the users' freedom. How will free software activists and open source enthusiasts react to that?

</p><p>A pure open source enthusiast, one that is not at all influenced by the ideals of free software, will say, "I am surprised you were able to make the program work so well without using our development model, but you did. How can I get a copy?" This attitude will reward schemes that take away our freedom, leading to its loss.</p><p>

The free software activist will say, "Your program is very attractive, but not at the price of my freedom. So I have to do without it. Instead I will support a project to develop a free replacement." If we value our freedom, we can act to maintain and defend it.</p></div></blockquote><p>I have to wonder what message any brand sends before I can agree to go along with it.  The FSFE essay doesn't make that clear, despite the call to action in the third paragraph from the end.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Name-calling and quarrelling on either side is not helpful , and serves to hide the common base and interest in having a strong brand and powerful message.Then let 's hope the Open Source Initiative 's days of calling free software activism " ideological tub-thumping " are behind them .
I do n't see branding as a means of teaching people about software freedom ( the very thing the OSI does n't talk about in their belief that businesses do n't want to hear about user 's freedoms ) , but I 'm happy to learn about branding efforts that explicitly teach people about supporting software freedom for its own sake and defending it for future generations so as to build and maintain social solidarity .
My experience is that efforts aimed at branding something typically aim for narrow commercial interests : convenience , ease-of-use , and reliability .
These things are not bad but they are insufficient for teaching people to value the freedoms to run , share , and modify computer software ; those values were chosen to meet the needs of proprietors    the people and organizations that do n't respect software freedom.When it comes to teaching freedom , I do n't have the trouble some say they have .
I used to host a call-in radio show talking about free software and related issues .
I did n't have problems explaining the philosophical difference between free software and open source nor did I have objections to playing various talks by people who went into the implications of this philosophical difference .
More recently , I find that the essay " Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software [ gnu.org ] " to be an excellent and not at all insulting essay on the philosophical differences between free software and open source .
One of the essay 's points that comes up repeatedly is how people who identify with each movement react in the face of powerful proprietary software .
Open source advocates would go along with the proprietor , free software activists would reject the proprietor and work on something that would do the same job but respect user 's software freedoms : The idea of open source is that allowing users to change and redistribute the software will make it more powerful and reliable .
But this is not guaranteed .
Developers of proprietary software are not necessarily incompetent .
Sometimes they produce a program which is powerful and reliable , even though it does not respect the users ' freedom .
How will free software activists and open source enthusiasts react to that ?
A pure open source enthusiast , one that is not at all influenced by the ideals of free software , will say , " I am surprised you were able to make the program work so well without using our development model , but you did .
How can I get a copy ?
" This attitude will reward schemes that take away our freedom , leading to its loss .
The free software activist will say , " Your program is very attractive , but not at the price of my freedom .
So I have to do without it .
Instead I will support a project to develop a free replacement .
" If we value our freedom , we can act to maintain and defend it.I have to wonder what message any brand sends before I can agree to go along with it .
The FSFE essay does n't make that clear , despite the call to action in the third paragraph from the end .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Name-calling and quarrelling on either side is not helpful, and serves to hide the common base and interest in having a strong brand and powerful message.Then let's hope the Open Source Initiative's days of calling free software activism "ideological tub-thumping" are behind them.
I don't see branding as a means of teaching people about software freedom (the very thing the OSI doesn't talk about in their belief that businesses don't want to hear about user's freedoms), but I'm happy to learn about branding efforts that explicitly teach people about supporting software freedom for its own sake and defending it for future generations so as to build and maintain social solidarity.
My experience is that efforts aimed at branding something typically aim for narrow commercial interests: convenience, ease-of-use, and reliability.
These things are not bad but they are insufficient for teaching people to value the freedoms to run, share, and modify computer software; those values were chosen to meet the needs of proprietors—the people and organizations that don't respect software freedom.When it comes to teaching freedom, I don't have the trouble some say they have.
I used to host a call-in radio show talking about free software and related issues.
I didn't have problems explaining the philosophical difference between free software and open source nor did I have objections to playing various talks by people who went into the implications of this philosophical difference.
More recently, I find that the essay "Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software [gnu.org]" to be an excellent and not at all insulting essay on the philosophical differences between free software and open source.
One of the essay's points that comes up repeatedly is how people who identify with each movement react in the face of powerful proprietary software.
Open source advocates would go along with the proprietor, free software activists would reject the proprietor and work on something that would do the same job but respect user's software freedoms:The idea of open source is that allowing users to change and redistribute the software will make it more powerful and reliable.
But this is not guaranteed.
Developers of proprietary software are not necessarily incompetent.
Sometimes they produce a program which is powerful and reliable, even though it does not respect the users' freedom.
How will free software activists and open source enthusiasts react to that?
A pure open source enthusiast, one that is not at all influenced by the ideals of free software, will say, "I am surprised you were able to make the program work so well without using our development model, but you did.
How can I get a copy?
" This attitude will reward schemes that take away our freedom, leading to its loss.
The free software activist will say, "Your program is very attractive, but not at the price of my freedom.
So I have to do without it.
Instead I will support a project to develop a free replacement.
" If we value our freedom, we can act to maintain and defend it.I have to wonder what message any brand sends before I can agree to go along with it.
The FSFE essay doesn't make that clear, despite the call to action in the third paragraph from the end.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28226231</id>
	<title>Re:The Bike Race Breakaway Metaphor</title>
	<author>cptdondo</author>
	<datestamp>1244232300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I remember watching the TDF a few years ago.  There was a breakaway that opened up a huge gap.  As the kilometers wore on, riders who couldn't keep the pace dropped from the breakaway and got swallowed by the peleton.  Finally, there were just two riders left.  They knew one would take the stage.  At the 1KM banner, they slowed, shook hands, and each went for the finish.</p><p>First cooperation, then competition.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember watching the TDF a few years ago .
There was a breakaway that opened up a huge gap .
As the kilometers wore on , riders who could n't keep the pace dropped from the breakaway and got swallowed by the peleton .
Finally , there were just two riders left .
They knew one would take the stage .
At the 1KM banner , they slowed , shook hands , and each went for the finish.First cooperation , then competition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember watching the TDF a few years ago.
There was a breakaway that opened up a huge gap.
As the kilometers wore on, riders who couldn't keep the pace dropped from the breakaway and got swallowed by the peleton.
Finally, there were just two riders left.
They knew one would take the stage.
At the 1KM banner, they slowed, shook hands, and each went for the finish.First cooperation, then competition.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225823</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28239515</id>
	<title>Re:And what would that brand teach people?</title>
	<author>jbn-o</author>
	<datestamp>1244316120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People say that they want to focus on the open source development ideology first then the freedom later, but they never specify when the freedom part should come in and they never get around to teaching the freedom part.  As more incidents happen where freedom is a great answer to the underlying problem (anything concerning digital restrictions management, for instance) I'm convinced that ordering one's approach in that way is a huge mistake for the pursuit of software freedom.  So I am not convinced that a freedom-later approach is anything but a way to push freedom aside entirely.  <a href="http://www.digitalcitizen.info/2006/09/30/why-cant-free-software-and-open-source-advocates-just-get-along/" title="digitalcitizen.info">Richard Stallman addressed this point at FISL7</a> [digitalcitizen.info] when an unnamed questioner and Michael Tiemann asked Stallman about this point:</p><blockquote><div><p>Unnamed Questioner: Last year, Eric Raymond came to FISL and said that [the] Free Software Foundation didn't like [the] Open Source Initiative though they-</p><p>Richard Stallman: That's true.</p><p>Unnamed Questioner: [laughs] -though they wanted to be friendly and work together.</p><p>RMS: Well, their idea of working together is that together we should advocate just what we have in common, and what we have in common happens to be their position. The reason is the philosophy of free software, of the free software movement which I founded in 1983, focuses on freedom and community; on human rights for software users. Open source was founded in 1998 as a way to stop talking about those things, to hush them up, bury them, put them out of people's sight. So they talk about practical advantages that come if you use free software. Well, I also talk about practical advantages in my speeches. So here's what I say, and here's the part they say. Except that they've gone in more depth on it, and that is useful. You know, making the case to businesses that they'll get some practical advantage out of releasing, under usually a free software license. That's useful. But the point is, it's still a more superficial part of the issue. So what they're really saying is they want to cooperate and they wish we would cooperate by forgetting about what we consider the most important thing and joining them in saying only the superficial part. This is the way Eric Raymond puts it; he's very clever at asking us to abandon the most important thing and making it sound like he's only being reasonable.</p><p>Later, Michael Tiemann says the following in response to RMS' statement on Raymond:</p><p>Michael Tiemann: Hi Richard, I just wanted to follow up on the question you were asked earlier about Eric Raymond. I wanted to point out a fact: which is that while Eric Raymond was formerly the president of the OSI he no longer is. Eric does speak for himself but less and less for the OSI. I would also like to clarify that as president of the OSI I have always supported the GPL as a model license for developers. It's the license-it's the only license I have chosen to work under other than the LGPL for my own programming. And I recognize your position, which is to say that if I am not talking about freedom first and foremost I am burying freedom but I think myself differently-</p><p>RMS: Well, you might be doing something in between. There are things in between. When Eric Raymond was the president of the OSI I could perceive this intention to bury talk of freedom very clearly, and there are others who talk about open source and clearly are trying to bury talk of freedom. That doesn't apply to everyone who uses the term ["open source"]. What is true of their use of the term is that it generally doesn't call attention to freedom very much.</p><p>Tiemann: But in this conference I do want to support that what you are doing is incredibly valuable and I respect it tremendously.</p><p>RMS: Well thank you.</p></div> </blockquote><p>Also, when it comes to being practical, it's notable that the most widely used free software licenses is the GNU GPL.  People also seem to use other GNU licenses a lot also.  So I am not convinced that the FSF needs help being "genuinely useful" or applying idealism in a practical way.  I find that the developmental focus of open source is what most people can't get behind because they're not developers.  But if you talk to them about free speech and working together to solve problems (even including hired help) they can get behind that and use the logic of that to question dependency on proprietary software.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>People say that they want to focus on the open source development ideology first then the freedom later , but they never specify when the freedom part should come in and they never get around to teaching the freedom part .
As more incidents happen where freedom is a great answer to the underlying problem ( anything concerning digital restrictions management , for instance ) I 'm convinced that ordering one 's approach in that way is a huge mistake for the pursuit of software freedom .
So I am not convinced that a freedom-later approach is anything but a way to push freedom aside entirely .
Richard Stallman addressed this point at FISL7 [ digitalcitizen.info ] when an unnamed questioner and Michael Tiemann asked Stallman about this point : Unnamed Questioner : Last year , Eric Raymond came to FISL and said that [ the ] Free Software Foundation did n't like [ the ] Open Source Initiative though they-Richard Stallman : That 's true.Unnamed Questioner : [ laughs ] -though they wanted to be friendly and work together.RMS : Well , their idea of working together is that together we should advocate just what we have in common , and what we have in common happens to be their position .
The reason is the philosophy of free software , of the free software movement which I founded in 1983 , focuses on freedom and community ; on human rights for software users .
Open source was founded in 1998 as a way to stop talking about those things , to hush them up , bury them , put them out of people 's sight .
So they talk about practical advantages that come if you use free software .
Well , I also talk about practical advantages in my speeches .
So here 's what I say , and here 's the part they say .
Except that they 've gone in more depth on it , and that is useful .
You know , making the case to businesses that they 'll get some practical advantage out of releasing , under usually a free software license .
That 's useful .
But the point is , it 's still a more superficial part of the issue .
So what they 're really saying is they want to cooperate and they wish we would cooperate by forgetting about what we consider the most important thing and joining them in saying only the superficial part .
This is the way Eric Raymond puts it ; he 's very clever at asking us to abandon the most important thing and making it sound like he 's only being reasonable.Later , Michael Tiemann says the following in response to RMS ' statement on Raymond : Michael Tiemann : Hi Richard , I just wanted to follow up on the question you were asked earlier about Eric Raymond .
I wanted to point out a fact : which is that while Eric Raymond was formerly the president of the OSI he no longer is .
Eric does speak for himself but less and less for the OSI .
I would also like to clarify that as president of the OSI I have always supported the GPL as a model license for developers .
It 's the license-it 's the only license I have chosen to work under other than the LGPL for my own programming .
And I recognize your position , which is to say that if I am not talking about freedom first and foremost I am burying freedom but I think myself differently-RMS : Well , you might be doing something in between .
There are things in between .
When Eric Raymond was the president of the OSI I could perceive this intention to bury talk of freedom very clearly , and there are others who talk about open source and clearly are trying to bury talk of freedom .
That does n't apply to everyone who uses the term [ " open source " ] .
What is true of their use of the term is that it generally does n't call attention to freedom very much.Tiemann : But in this conference I do want to support that what you are doing is incredibly valuable and I respect it tremendously.RMS : Well thank you .
Also , when it comes to being practical , it 's notable that the most widely used free software licenses is the GNU GPL .
People also seem to use other GNU licenses a lot also .
So I am not convinced that the FSF needs help being " genuinely useful " or applying idealism in a practical way .
I find that the developmental focus of open source is what most people ca n't get behind because they 're not developers .
But if you talk to them about free speech and working together to solve problems ( even including hired help ) they can get behind that and use the logic of that to question dependency on proprietary software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People say that they want to focus on the open source development ideology first then the freedom later, but they never specify when the freedom part should come in and they never get around to teaching the freedom part.
As more incidents happen where freedom is a great answer to the underlying problem (anything concerning digital restrictions management, for instance) I'm convinced that ordering one's approach in that way is a huge mistake for the pursuit of software freedom.
So I am not convinced that a freedom-later approach is anything but a way to push freedom aside entirely.
Richard Stallman addressed this point at FISL7 [digitalcitizen.info] when an unnamed questioner and Michael Tiemann asked Stallman about this point:Unnamed Questioner: Last year, Eric Raymond came to FISL and said that [the] Free Software Foundation didn't like [the] Open Source Initiative though they-Richard Stallman: That's true.Unnamed Questioner: [laughs] -though they wanted to be friendly and work together.RMS: Well, their idea of working together is that together we should advocate just what we have in common, and what we have in common happens to be their position.
The reason is the philosophy of free software, of the free software movement which I founded in 1983, focuses on freedom and community; on human rights for software users.
Open source was founded in 1998 as a way to stop talking about those things, to hush them up, bury them, put them out of people's sight.
So they talk about practical advantages that come if you use free software.
Well, I also talk about practical advantages in my speeches.
So here's what I say, and here's the part they say.
Except that they've gone in more depth on it, and that is useful.
You know, making the case to businesses that they'll get some practical advantage out of releasing, under usually a free software license.
That's useful.
But the point is, it's still a more superficial part of the issue.
So what they're really saying is they want to cooperate and they wish we would cooperate by forgetting about what we consider the most important thing and joining them in saying only the superficial part.
This is the way Eric Raymond puts it; he's very clever at asking us to abandon the most important thing and making it sound like he's only being reasonable.Later, Michael Tiemann says the following in response to RMS' statement on Raymond:Michael Tiemann: Hi Richard, I just wanted to follow up on the question you were asked earlier about Eric Raymond.
I wanted to point out a fact: which is that while Eric Raymond was formerly the president of the OSI he no longer is.
Eric does speak for himself but less and less for the OSI.
I would also like to clarify that as president of the OSI I have always supported the GPL as a model license for developers.
It's the license-it's the only license I have chosen to work under other than the LGPL for my own programming.
And I recognize your position, which is to say that if I am not talking about freedom first and foremost I am burying freedom but I think myself differently-RMS: Well, you might be doing something in between.
There are things in between.
When Eric Raymond was the president of the OSI I could perceive this intention to bury talk of freedom very clearly, and there are others who talk about open source and clearly are trying to bury talk of freedom.
That doesn't apply to everyone who uses the term ["open source"].
What is true of their use of the term is that it generally doesn't call attention to freedom very much.Tiemann: But in this conference I do want to support that what you are doing is incredibly valuable and I respect it tremendously.RMS: Well thank you.
Also, when it comes to being practical, it's notable that the most widely used free software licenses is the GNU GPL.
People also seem to use other GNU licenses a lot also.
So I am not convinced that the FSF needs help being "genuinely useful" or applying idealism in a practical way.
I find that the developmental focus of open source is what most people can't get behind because they're not developers.
But if you talk to them about free speech and working together to solve problems (even including hired help) they can get behind that and use the logic of that to question dependency on proprietary software.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28229849</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28242061</id>
	<title>Insulting and deceiving argument</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244396640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The divide between Open Source and Free Software is not and has never been based on name calling or insignificant quarreling (although there has been plenty of that to go around). The difference between them is freedom, and that will always be important, not matter how much people want to sweep it under a rug.</p><p>I agree that spending time fighting over such things is a waste of resources, but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be a clear divide between Free Software and non free software. I personally use open source non free software, but I try to be conscious of what that software is and I can say that it's hard enough already to know what is what. It already takes a lot of effort and research to find out what's free and what's not, to blur the lines further would mean forgetting about freedom and using the terms interchangeably and that is a great danger.</p><p>I cannot stress enough that what divides us is freedom and that is no small matter. In fact the difference between Free Software and Open Source is infinitely bigger than the difference between Open Source and gratis proprietary software. And that has been the argument from the Free Software point of view since the beginning, not name calling as mr. Georg Greve is implying.</p><p>And about the branding issue, I think it should be obvious that Free Software cannot be a brand, just as much as Free Speech cannot be one. If speech is free, than we have Free Speech and we can speak freely and listen freely, no matter what content that speech brings or where it comes from. It's the same case with Free Software, there cannot be a brand related with it because it happens spontaneously from infinite potential sources and environments.</p><p>That's why the FSF has never and will never arbitrate about what is or isn't Free Software and the same goes for the GPL. As long as you don't take away any freedom, than it's free by it's very nature, not because of a brand or a license or a community or anything else. The risk here is creating a brand such as Open Source and trying to market the software with that brand as if it was free as if it was the same as all the Free Software that already exists, when in fact it is not and it'll never be, no matter what you call it or what kind of pretty penguin you stamp on it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The divide between Open Source and Free Software is not and has never been based on name calling or insignificant quarreling ( although there has been plenty of that to go around ) .
The difference between them is freedom , and that will always be important , not matter how much people want to sweep it under a rug.I agree that spending time fighting over such things is a waste of resources , but that does n't mean there should n't be a clear divide between Free Software and non free software .
I personally use open source non free software , but I try to be conscious of what that software is and I can say that it 's hard enough already to know what is what .
It already takes a lot of effort and research to find out what 's free and what 's not , to blur the lines further would mean forgetting about freedom and using the terms interchangeably and that is a great danger.I can not stress enough that what divides us is freedom and that is no small matter .
In fact the difference between Free Software and Open Source is infinitely bigger than the difference between Open Source and gratis proprietary software .
And that has been the argument from the Free Software point of view since the beginning , not name calling as mr. Georg Greve is implying.And about the branding issue , I think it should be obvious that Free Software can not be a brand , just as much as Free Speech can not be one .
If speech is free , than we have Free Speech and we can speak freely and listen freely , no matter what content that speech brings or where it comes from .
It 's the same case with Free Software , there can not be a brand related with it because it happens spontaneously from infinite potential sources and environments.That 's why the FSF has never and will never arbitrate about what is or is n't Free Software and the same goes for the GPL .
As long as you do n't take away any freedom , than it 's free by it 's very nature , not because of a brand or a license or a community or anything else .
The risk here is creating a brand such as Open Source and trying to market the software with that brand as if it was free as if it was the same as all the Free Software that already exists , when in fact it is not and it 'll never be , no matter what you call it or what kind of pretty penguin you stamp on it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The divide between Open Source and Free Software is not and has never been based on name calling or insignificant quarreling (although there has been plenty of that to go around).
The difference between them is freedom, and that will always be important, not matter how much people want to sweep it under a rug.I agree that spending time fighting over such things is a waste of resources, but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be a clear divide between Free Software and non free software.
I personally use open source non free software, but I try to be conscious of what that software is and I can say that it's hard enough already to know what is what.
It already takes a lot of effort and research to find out what's free and what's not, to blur the lines further would mean forgetting about freedom and using the terms interchangeably and that is a great danger.I cannot stress enough that what divides us is freedom and that is no small matter.
In fact the difference between Free Software and Open Source is infinitely bigger than the difference between Open Source and gratis proprietary software.
And that has been the argument from the Free Software point of view since the beginning, not name calling as mr. Georg Greve is implying.And about the branding issue, I think it should be obvious that Free Software cannot be a brand, just as much as Free Speech cannot be one.
If speech is free, than we have Free Speech and we can speak freely and listen freely, no matter what content that speech brings or where it comes from.
It's the same case with Free Software, there cannot be a brand related with it because it happens spontaneously from infinite potential sources and environments.That's why the FSF has never and will never arbitrate about what is or isn't Free Software and the same goes for the GPL.
As long as you don't take away any freedom, than it's free by it's very nature, not because of a brand or a license or a community or anything else.
The risk here is creating a brand such as Open Source and trying to market the software with that brand as if it was free as if it was the same as all the Free Software that already exists, when in fact it is not and it'll never be, no matter what you call it or what kind of pretty penguin you stamp on it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28229191</id>
	<title>I'd be willing to consider burying the hatchet</title>
	<author>petrus4</author>
	<datestamp>1244209260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the FSF truly wants peace, then despite my admitted level of trolling in<br>their direction online in the past, I for one would actually be willing to<br>look at reconciliation; however I have some requests which I would like to<br>have met as a condition of such, personally.</p><p>-  A fundamental recognition of two key facts, which the organisation has been<br>apparently unwilling to recognise in the past.</p><p>a)  There are individuals in the world which, despite the organisation's best<br>efforts to the contrary, adamantly maintain opposing perspectives to that of<br>the FSF.</p><p>b)  Said individuals have the right to exist.  A world in which the FSF's<br>perspective was universal would be an extremely unhealthy and unbalanced one,<br>and certainly would not be one in which I for one would want to live.  The FSF<br>does itself no favours when it holds itself as the <b>exclusive</b> arbiter of<br>appropriate ethical, social, or economic thought.</p><p>-  The muzzling of Richard Stallman.  Stallman is a divisive radical, and the<br>fundamental source of any problems I've ever had with the FSF.  He causes<br>conflict, slows progress, and damages the open source community as a whole. He<br>is also utterly incapable of any form of compromise.</p><p>-  The development of an ability to be realistic about potential threats.  I<br>am talking here primarily about the supposed bogeyman of DRM.  As I<br>predicted, the use of Digital Rights Management ultimately went nowhere in the<br>marketplace, and this is because the buying public are far more intelligent<br>and discerning than the FSF, sadly, tends to give them credit for.</p><p>One area which the FSF badly needs to work on, is its' perception of human<br>nature, both in its' positive and negative aspects.  This, more than any<br>other, is perhaps the single main cognitive area in which the organisation is<br>critically lacking.  There is an entirely egocentric fixation on what the<br>Foundation itself wants, rather than on external reality and what the rest of<br>the planet wants; especially considering that these two perspectives are<br>opposed far more often than they are in alignment.  If the FSF had more of a<br>genuine understanding of what the buying public wants, they would have been<br>able to pre-emptively recognise that DRM was going to go nowhere, entirely<br>without any involvement from them whatsoever, and they could have directed<br>their energies to more genuinely productive persuits.</p><p>The Foundation needs to learn to understand that a recognition of both of<br>these perspectives, and seeking reconciliation and blending between them, is<br>the way forward.  Radicalism is not a means of progress, and before any of the<br>Foundation's supporters argue that it has worked well enough in the past, they<br>would do well to remember that the majority of progress that has been made<br>towards the FSF's goals, has not actually been made due to the FSF itself, and<br>has in fact been made largely aside from it.</p><p>-  A return to the generation of software, rather than activism, as a primary<br>focus.  Software development was, I feel, not only the FSF's first role, but<br>its' most genuinely valuable.  I do not (and did not, when it first happened)<br>feel that the relinquishment of the GNU Project's development to Red Hat was<br>appropriate.  The FSF are a non-profit entity, and it makes a lot more sense<br>for such an entity to remain as the custodian of the software, than a<br>for-profit company.</p><p>-  The repeal of version 3 of the General Public License.  I strongly suspect<br>that this is one request which I am not going to be alone in making.  Eben<br>Moglen's assurances to the contrary, version 3 of the GPL is something which<br>the FSF's radicals more or less alone want.  It is not something which, from<br>everything I have seen, the majority of either the developer or the user<br>communities want.</p><p>Version 2 is a license which, while I perhaps still might not see it as being<br>appropriate for *every* situation, is an acceptable and j</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the FSF truly wants peace , then despite my admitted level of trolling intheir direction online in the past , I for one would actually be willing tolook at reconciliation ; however I have some requests which I would like tohave met as a condition of such , personally.- A fundamental recognition of two key facts , which the organisation has beenapparently unwilling to recognise in the past.a ) There are individuals in the world which , despite the organisation 's bestefforts to the contrary , adamantly maintain opposing perspectives to that ofthe FSF.b ) Said individuals have the right to exist .
A world in which the FSF'sperspective was universal would be an extremely unhealthy and unbalanced one,and certainly would not be one in which I for one would want to live .
The FSFdoes itself no favours when it holds itself as the exclusive arbiter ofappropriate ethical , social , or economic thought.- The muzzling of Richard Stallman .
Stallman is a divisive radical , and thefundamental source of any problems I 've ever had with the FSF .
He causesconflict , slows progress , and damages the open source community as a whole .
Heis also utterly incapable of any form of compromise.- The development of an ability to be realistic about potential threats .
Iam talking here primarily about the supposed bogeyman of DRM .
As Ipredicted , the use of Digital Rights Management ultimately went nowhere in themarketplace , and this is because the buying public are far more intelligentand discerning than the FSF , sadly , tends to give them credit for.One area which the FSF badly needs to work on , is its ' perception of humannature , both in its ' positive and negative aspects .
This , more than anyother , is perhaps the single main cognitive area in which the organisation iscritically lacking .
There is an entirely egocentric fixation on what theFoundation itself wants , rather than on external reality and what the rest ofthe planet wants ; especially considering that these two perspectives areopposed far more often than they are in alignment .
If the FSF had more of agenuine understanding of what the buying public wants , they would have beenable to pre-emptively recognise that DRM was going to go nowhere , entirelywithout any involvement from them whatsoever , and they could have directedtheir energies to more genuinely productive persuits.The Foundation needs to learn to understand that a recognition of both ofthese perspectives , and seeking reconciliation and blending between them , isthe way forward .
Radicalism is not a means of progress , and before any of theFoundation 's supporters argue that it has worked well enough in the past , theywould do well to remember that the majority of progress that has been madetowards the FSF 's goals , has not actually been made due to the FSF itself , andhas in fact been made largely aside from it.- A return to the generation of software , rather than activism , as a primaryfocus .
Software development was , I feel , not only the FSF 's first role , butits ' most genuinely valuable .
I do not ( and did not , when it first happened ) feel that the relinquishment of the GNU Project 's development to Red Hat wasappropriate .
The FSF are a non-profit entity , and it makes a lot more sensefor such an entity to remain as the custodian of the software , than afor-profit company.- The repeal of version 3 of the General Public License .
I strongly suspectthat this is one request which I am not going to be alone in making .
EbenMoglen 's assurances to the contrary , version 3 of the GPL is something whichthe FSF 's radicals more or less alone want .
It is not something which , fromeverything I have seen , the majority of either the developer or the usercommunities want.Version 2 is a license which , while I perhaps still might not see it as beingappropriate for * every * situation , is an acceptable and j</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the FSF truly wants peace, then despite my admitted level of trolling intheir direction online in the past, I for one would actually be willing tolook at reconciliation; however I have some requests which I would like tohave met as a condition of such, personally.-  A fundamental recognition of two key facts, which the organisation has beenapparently unwilling to recognise in the past.a)  There are individuals in the world which, despite the organisation's bestefforts to the contrary, adamantly maintain opposing perspectives to that ofthe FSF.b)  Said individuals have the right to exist.
A world in which the FSF'sperspective was universal would be an extremely unhealthy and unbalanced one,and certainly would not be one in which I for one would want to live.
The FSFdoes itself no favours when it holds itself as the exclusive arbiter ofappropriate ethical, social, or economic thought.-  The muzzling of Richard Stallman.
Stallman is a divisive radical, and thefundamental source of any problems I've ever had with the FSF.
He causesconflict, slows progress, and damages the open source community as a whole.
Heis also utterly incapable of any form of compromise.-  The development of an ability to be realistic about potential threats.
Iam talking here primarily about the supposed bogeyman of DRM.
As Ipredicted, the use of Digital Rights Management ultimately went nowhere in themarketplace, and this is because the buying public are far more intelligentand discerning than the FSF, sadly, tends to give them credit for.One area which the FSF badly needs to work on, is its' perception of humannature, both in its' positive and negative aspects.
This, more than anyother, is perhaps the single main cognitive area in which the organisation iscritically lacking.
There is an entirely egocentric fixation on what theFoundation itself wants, rather than on external reality and what the rest ofthe planet wants; especially considering that these two perspectives areopposed far more often than they are in alignment.
If the FSF had more of agenuine understanding of what the buying public wants, they would have beenable to pre-emptively recognise that DRM was going to go nowhere, entirelywithout any involvement from them whatsoever, and they could have directedtheir energies to more genuinely productive persuits.The Foundation needs to learn to understand that a recognition of both ofthese perspectives, and seeking reconciliation and blending between them, isthe way forward.
Radicalism is not a means of progress, and before any of theFoundation's supporters argue that it has worked well enough in the past, theywould do well to remember that the majority of progress that has been madetowards the FSF's goals, has not actually been made due to the FSF itself, andhas in fact been made largely aside from it.-  A return to the generation of software, rather than activism, as a primaryfocus.
Software development was, I feel, not only the FSF's first role, butits' most genuinely valuable.
I do not (and did not, when it first happened)feel that the relinquishment of the GNU Project's development to Red Hat wasappropriate.
The FSF are a non-profit entity, and it makes a lot more sensefor such an entity to remain as the custodian of the software, than afor-profit company.-  The repeal of version 3 of the General Public License.
I strongly suspectthat this is one request which I am not going to be alone in making.
EbenMoglen's assurances to the contrary, version 3 of the GPL is something whichthe FSF's radicals more or less alone want.
It is not something which, fromeverything I have seen, the majority of either the developer or the usercommunities want.Version 2 is a license which, while I perhaps still might not see it as beingappropriate for *every* situation, is an acceptable and j</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28227461</id>
	<title>Herding Cats</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244195640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Getting FOSSies to work together is as futile as herding cats.</p><p>When they are close to a concensus on an operating system, or at least anything else... at least one person will fork the project.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Getting FOSSies to work together is as futile as herding cats.When they are close to a concensus on an operating system , or at least anything else... at least one person will fork the project .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Getting FOSSies to work together is as futile as herding cats.When they are close to a concensus on an operating system, or at least anything else... at least one person will fork the project.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225111</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28227669</id>
	<title>STFU. first go RTFA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244197140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Kaiser will have his way!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Kaiser will have his way !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Kaiser will have his way!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225111</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28226801</id>
	<title>We need to unite</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1244235180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>there are a lot of real enemies around. ranging from patent trolls to derelict distribution companies buying legislation. we can stand united against them. we have to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>there are a lot of real enemies around .
ranging from patent trolls to derelict distribution companies buying legislation .
we can stand united against them .
we have to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>there are a lot of real enemies around.
ranging from patent trolls to derelict distribution companies buying legislation.
we can stand united against them.
we have to.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28232103</id>
	<title>Re:FOSS Brand?!</title>
	<author>Schraegstrichpunkt</author>
	<datestamp>1244297100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>(only the fatally jealous calls is GNU/Linux<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:) )</p></div><p>Not only: Occasionally people need the term to distinguish between GNU/Linux, Busybox/Linux, and GNU/kFreeBSD.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>( only the fatally jealous calls is GNU/Linux : ) ) Not only : Occasionally people need the term to distinguish between GNU/Linux , Busybox/Linux , and GNU/kFreeBSD .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(only the fatally jealous calls is GNU/Linux :) )Not only: Occasionally people need the term to distinguish between GNU/Linux, Busybox/Linux, and GNU/kFreeBSD.
:)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225547</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28226217</id>
	<title>Re:The Bike Race Breakaway Metaphor</title>
	<author>Braino420</author>
	<datestamp>1244232240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Mindshare gains are to not accomplished by wasting energy squabbling with your logical ally. AFTER sufficient mindshare has been won from closed source--then squabble and be stupid if you want to! But meanwhile--cooperate on the breakaway!!!! It makes for a better race!!</p></div></blockquote><p>
That's really inspiring and stuff, but, like all analogies, leaves some things out. This is why analogies are a tool for explaining things, not for coming to some logical conclusion (there is no Proof by Analogy in discrete math). Many of the OSI crowd just really don't care how close the dreaded "proprietary software" comes to competing with them, they just want to do their thing the best way they know how. Wiping out proprietary software is the goal of the FSF guys, it's a side effect for the OSI guys.
<br> <br>
And what is all of this "wasted energy" nonsense? How is having ideological discussions wasted energy? These users of software, for the most part, don't really care what their software is licensed under. This is something that's really only discussed by the developers of software (and possibly their employers), and so maybe if the OSI and FSF were to join forces to get the proprietary software devs, this might make sense. But I don't see discussion of ideologies as something that hampers the use of F/OSS.
<br> <br>
On top of this, I see most of the animosity from the FSF side; they are the ones who are all hung up on ideology and get angry when people *gasp* even explain how to install proprietary software. I know, it's not fair to equate RMS' ideology with that of the entire FSF organization, but he<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/is/ on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/your/ side.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mindshare gains are to not accomplished by wasting energy squabbling with your logical ally .
AFTER sufficient mindshare has been won from closed source--then squabble and be stupid if you want to !
But meanwhile--cooperate on the breakaway ! ! ! !
It makes for a better race ! !
That 's really inspiring and stuff , but , like all analogies , leaves some things out .
This is why analogies are a tool for explaining things , not for coming to some logical conclusion ( there is no Proof by Analogy in discrete math ) .
Many of the OSI crowd just really do n't care how close the dreaded " proprietary software " comes to competing with them , they just want to do their thing the best way they know how .
Wiping out proprietary software is the goal of the FSF guys , it 's a side effect for the OSI guys .
And what is all of this " wasted energy " nonsense ?
How is having ideological discussions wasted energy ?
These users of software , for the most part , do n't really care what their software is licensed under .
This is something that 's really only discussed by the developers of software ( and possibly their employers ) , and so maybe if the OSI and FSF were to join forces to get the proprietary software devs , this might make sense .
But I do n't see discussion of ideologies as something that hampers the use of F/OSS .
On top of this , I see most of the animosity from the FSF side ; they are the ones who are all hung up on ideology and get angry when people * gasp * even explain how to install proprietary software .
I know , it 's not fair to equate RMS ' ideology with that of the entire FSF organization , but he /is/ on /your/ side .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mindshare gains are to not accomplished by wasting energy squabbling with your logical ally.
AFTER sufficient mindshare has been won from closed source--then squabble and be stupid if you want to!
But meanwhile--cooperate on the breakaway!!!!
It makes for a better race!!
That's really inspiring and stuff, but, like all analogies, leaves some things out.
This is why analogies are a tool for explaining things, not for coming to some logical conclusion (there is no Proof by Analogy in discrete math).
Many of the OSI crowd just really don't care how close the dreaded "proprietary software" comes to competing with them, they just want to do their thing the best way they know how.
Wiping out proprietary software is the goal of the FSF guys, it's a side effect for the OSI guys.
And what is all of this "wasted energy" nonsense?
How is having ideological discussions wasted energy?
These users of software, for the most part, don't really care what their software is licensed under.
This is something that's really only discussed by the developers of software (and possibly their employers), and so maybe if the OSI and FSF were to join forces to get the proprietary software devs, this might make sense.
But I don't see discussion of ideologies as something that hampers the use of F/OSS.
On top of this, I see most of the animosity from the FSF side; they are the ones who are all hung up on ideology and get angry when people *gasp* even explain how to install proprietary software.
I know, it's not fair to equate RMS' ideology with that of the entire FSF organization, but he /is/ on /your/ side.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225823</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225125</id>
	<title>False friends, as well as false enemies</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244226960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There was a story in the Firehose a couple days ago that had links to NEC and Panasonic's "source code download" site for their Japanese Docomo phones.</p><p>They've been on the Linux bandwagon for years and have been giving away the source. However, they have added the extra stipulation that downloaders need to have actually bought the phone (and require the IMEI to prove it).</p><p>This is in direct violation of GPLv2's section 3b which requires the source be available to all.</p><p>Anyway, I thought that was interesting and wondered why it never reached the front page (it was orange, so interest was high). And seeing as how the current story is about false friends and false enemies, I thought it appropriate to point out how some of the biggest exploiters of Linux are also sometimes enemies of free software.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There was a story in the Firehose a couple days ago that had links to NEC and Panasonic 's " source code download " site for their Japanese Docomo phones.They 've been on the Linux bandwagon for years and have been giving away the source .
However , they have added the extra stipulation that downloaders need to have actually bought the phone ( and require the IMEI to prove it ) .This is in direct violation of GPLv2 's section 3b which requires the source be available to all.Anyway , I thought that was interesting and wondered why it never reached the front page ( it was orange , so interest was high ) .
And seeing as how the current story is about false friends and false enemies , I thought it appropriate to point out how some of the biggest exploiters of Linux are also sometimes enemies of free software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There was a story in the Firehose a couple days ago that had links to NEC and Panasonic's "source code download" site for their Japanese Docomo phones.They've been on the Linux bandwagon for years and have been giving away the source.
However, they have added the extra stipulation that downloaders need to have actually bought the phone (and require the IMEI to prove it).This is in direct violation of GPLv2's section 3b which requires the source be available to all.Anyway, I thought that was interesting and wondered why it never reached the front page (it was orange, so interest was high).
And seeing as how the current story is about false friends and false enemies, I thought it appropriate to point out how some of the biggest exploiters of Linux are also sometimes enemies of free software.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28226529</id>
	<title>Free Software</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244233620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't call it "Open Source", but call it by its proper name - Free Software. When you say "Open" or "Closed", you imply that Freedom is not important.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't call it " Open Source " , but call it by its proper name - Free Software .
When you say " Open " or " Closed " , you imply that Freedom is not important .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't call it "Open Source", but call it by its proper name - Free Software.
When you say "Open" or "Closed", you imply that Freedom is not important.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28226275</id>
	<title>Re:One should never RTFA, indeed ...</title>
	<author>david\_thornley</author>
	<datestamp>1244232480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Why did you stop?
</p><p>
The Free Software Foundation and Open Source Initiative are very different in philosophy and how they present themselves.  There are often serious disagreements on what is best to do on on legal and political issues.
</p><p>
However, when it comes to writing software, the two are very similar.  They encourage the same things, and differ only slightly in the licenses they accept.
</p><p>
The software written by a Free Software developer out of ideology is basically indistinguishable from that written by an esr follower who just wants to use the bazaar technique of development.  At this level, there are no differences.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why did you stop ?
The Free Software Foundation and Open Source Initiative are very different in philosophy and how they present themselves .
There are often serious disagreements on what is best to do on on legal and political issues .
However , when it comes to writing software , the two are very similar .
They encourage the same things , and differ only slightly in the licenses they accept .
The software written by a Free Software developer out of ideology is basically indistinguishable from that written by an esr follower who just wants to use the bazaar technique of development .
At this level , there are no differences .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Why did you stop?
The Free Software Foundation and Open Source Initiative are very different in philosophy and how they present themselves.
There are often serious disagreements on what is best to do on on legal and political issues.
However, when it comes to writing software, the two are very similar.
They encourage the same things, and differ only slightly in the licenses they accept.
The software written by a Free Software developer out of ideology is basically indistinguishable from that written by an esr follower who just wants to use the bazaar technique of development.
At this level, there are no differences.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225179</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225751</id>
	<title>m5a8e</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244229780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">List of other member.  GNAA (GAY completely before hapless *BSD [slashdot.org], part of GNAA if The wind appeared distributions Users all over the where it belongs, OF AMERICA) is the else to be an according tothis not going to play and building is new core is going Let's keep to 4, which by all that comprise (Click Here downward spiral. a super-organised suffering *BSD same yeaMr, BSD maintained that too I know it sux0rs, spot when done For for membership. Provide sodas, variations on the dicks pro3uced Progress. In 1992, FreeBSD went out what they think is provide sodas, You're told. It's not anymore. It's of HIV and other truth, for all</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>List of other member .
GNAA ( GAY completely before hapless * BSD [ slashdot.org ] , part of GNAA if The wind appeared distributions Users all over the where it belongs , OF AMERICA ) is the else to be an according tothis not going to play and building is new core is going Let 's keep to 4 , which by all that comprise ( Click Here downward spiral .
a super-organised suffering * BSD same yeaMr , BSD maintained that too I know it sux0rs , spot when done For for membership .
Provide sodas , variations on the dicks pro3uced Progress .
In 1992 , FreeBSD went out what they think is provide sodas , You 're told .
It 's not anymore .
It 's of HIV and other truth , for all [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>List of other member.
GNAA (GAY completely before hapless *BSD [slashdot.org], part of GNAA if The wind appeared distributions Users all over the where it belongs, OF AMERICA) is the else to be an according tothis not going to play and building is new core is going Let's keep to 4, which by all that comprise (Click Here downward spiral.
a super-organised suffering *BSD same yeaMr, BSD maintained that too I know it sux0rs, spot when done For for membership.
Provide sodas, variations on the dicks pro3uced Progress.
In 1992, FreeBSD went out what they think is provide sodas, You're told.
It's not anymore.
It's of HIV and other truth, for all [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28227677</id>
	<title>Bullshit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244197140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>GPL v2 does not allow for additional restrictions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>GPL v2 does not allow for additional restrictions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>GPL v2 does not allow for additional restrictions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28226005</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28226005</id>
	<title>Re:False friends, as well as false enemies</title>
	<author>andy.ruddock</author>
	<datestamp>1244231100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Except that section 3b of GPL v2 says that the source code needs to made available to those for whom you make available copies of your work.<br>
Nowhere does it say that you <strong>have</strong> to make copies of your work available for everybody, neither does it say that you <strong>have</strong> to make the source available to everybody.<br> <br>
What it <strong>does</strong> do is prevent anybody who already has copies of the work (obtained by legal/lawful means), and/or the source code, making it available to others.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Except that section 3b of GPL v2 says that the source code needs to made available to those for whom you make available copies of your work .
Nowhere does it say that you have to make copies of your work available for everybody , neither does it say that you have to make the source available to everybody .
What it does do is prevent anybody who already has copies of the work ( obtained by legal/lawful means ) , and/or the source code , making it available to others .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except that section 3b of GPL v2 says that the source code needs to made available to those for whom you make available copies of your work.
Nowhere does it say that you have to make copies of your work available for everybody, neither does it say that you have to make the source available to everybody.
What it does do is prevent anybody who already has copies of the work (obtained by legal/lawful means), and/or the source code, making it available to others.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225125</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225659</id>
	<title>impossible utopian dream</title>
	<author>FudRucker</author>
	<datestamp>1244229420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>not going to happen, people are going to critisize software on
occasion, and there are going to be forks, and rejections, for example
slackware discontinued including gnome, Torvalds bad-mouthed it
and later started using gnome again and now dislikes kde4.</htmltext>
<tokenext>not going to happen , people are going to critisize software on occasion , and there are going to be forks , and rejections , for example slackware discontinued including gnome , Torvalds bad-mouthed it and later started using gnome again and now dislikes kde4 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>not going to happen, people are going to critisize software on
occasion, and there are going to be forks, and rejections, for example
slackware discontinued including gnome, Torvalds bad-mouthed it
and later started using gnome again and now dislikes kde4.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28227867</id>
	<title>Re:Branding</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244198340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>People will pay more for "Disney" brand shoes than the same shoe with "Bob" brand.</p></div></blockquote><p>I'd pay a lot for a "Bob" brand of shoes, except the SubGenius CafePress site does not offer them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>People will pay more for " Disney " brand shoes than the same shoe with " Bob " brand.I 'd pay a lot for a " Bob " brand of shoes , except the SubGenius CafePress site does not offer them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People will pay more for "Disney" brand shoes than the same shoe with "Bob" brand.I'd pay a lot for a "Bob" brand of shoes, except the SubGenius CafePress site does not offer them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225473</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225245</id>
	<title>I'd love to..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244227560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hear RMS' take on this.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hear RMS ' take on this .
: D</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hear RMS' take on this.
:D</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28226813</id>
	<title>Barbarian Horde software</title>
	<author>fyoder</author>
	<datestamp>1244235240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Open source is a random barbarian horde of software developers.</p></div><p>Okay, there's your brand, "Barbarian Horde".  Someone else suggested "Hippyware".  For some reason, I find myself thinking of gypsies.  All of which suggests not that the thing is unbrandable, but that it's really challenging to come up with a brand that would appeal to business and normals.  It would be nice if it also appealed to counter-culture types, but that just makes the problem even harder.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Open source is a random barbarian horde of software developers.Okay , there 's your brand , " Barbarian Horde " .
Someone else suggested " Hippyware " .
For some reason , I find myself thinking of gypsies .
All of which suggests not that the thing is unbrandable , but that it 's really challenging to come up with a brand that would appeal to business and normals .
It would be nice if it also appealed to counter-culture types , but that just makes the problem even harder .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Open source is a random barbarian horde of software developers.Okay, there's your brand, "Barbarian Horde".
Someone else suggested "Hippyware".
For some reason, I find myself thinking of gypsies.
All of which suggests not that the thing is unbrandable, but that it's really challenging to come up with a brand that would appeal to business and normals.
It would be nice if it also appealed to counter-culture types, but that just makes the problem even harder.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225407</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225649</id>
	<title>Re:I'd love to..</title>
	<author>dyingtolive</author>
	<datestamp>1244229360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think his take on things is part of the problem that damages whatever brand might have been able to exist.  Linux is what I would call generically the flagship "product" of the F/OSS "Brand" (with the realization that I'm using all of those words deliberately imprecisely, like a typical user would).  People can't even agree on the name of it.  GNU/RMS GNU/wants GNU/it GNU/to GNU/be GNU/called GNU/something GNU/else, but most of the rest of the free world simply calls it Linux.  To others its "Ubuntu", and there is no other term for it.  I'm not sure you can take something that isn't centrally managed and effectively establish a firm brand on it.  It seems to me like while you can do your best to help improve an image, it still remains that the branding is only a product of what the public perceive it as.  While that may seem like a rather obvious statement, I don't think there is much that can be done until you clear up the internal squabbling.  Check the ego's at the door and allow for one group to handle standardization on naming and other "conventions".  Focus some funding/volunteer work toward softskills as well as development like marketing and advertising.  Have someone release a solid distro that has an easy to pronounce, catchy name (Ku-boon-TOO? Ku-bun-TOO?  K-Ubun-TU?  I have heard it called all these things by different people.  If they can't figure out how to pronounce it, they won't like talking about it).  Find some people who are technically minded enough to be able to grasp what is going on, but at the same time capable of making catchy advertisements, have some donations or fundraisers to build revenue to plaster them on websites and maybe even TV.  Lord knows there are enough "geek" t-shirt sites out there plastering the same tired old witticisms.  Maybe co-opt with one of them to actually bring about some new designs and donate a part of the profit toward such an initiative, otherwise, start your own and do so.<br> <br>
That's about all I have for my rant.  I will leave you with this: <br> <br>

Blake:  A-I-D-A. Attention, Interest, Decision, Action. Attention - Do I have you attention? Interest - Are you interested? I know you are, because it's fuck or walk. You close or you hit the bricks. Decision - Have you made your decision for Christ? And Action.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think his take on things is part of the problem that damages whatever brand might have been able to exist .
Linux is what I would call generically the flagship " product " of the F/OSS " Brand " ( with the realization that I 'm using all of those words deliberately imprecisely , like a typical user would ) .
People ca n't even agree on the name of it .
GNU/RMS GNU/wants GNU/it GNU/to GNU/be GNU/called GNU/something GNU/else , but most of the rest of the free world simply calls it Linux .
To others its " Ubuntu " , and there is no other term for it .
I 'm not sure you can take something that is n't centrally managed and effectively establish a firm brand on it .
It seems to me like while you can do your best to help improve an image , it still remains that the branding is only a product of what the public perceive it as .
While that may seem like a rather obvious statement , I do n't think there is much that can be done until you clear up the internal squabbling .
Check the ego 's at the door and allow for one group to handle standardization on naming and other " conventions " .
Focus some funding/volunteer work toward softskills as well as development like marketing and advertising .
Have someone release a solid distro that has an easy to pronounce , catchy name ( Ku-boon-TOO ?
Ku-bun-TOO ? K-Ubun-TU ?
I have heard it called all these things by different people .
If they ca n't figure out how to pronounce it , they wo n't like talking about it ) .
Find some people who are technically minded enough to be able to grasp what is going on , but at the same time capable of making catchy advertisements , have some donations or fundraisers to build revenue to plaster them on websites and maybe even TV .
Lord knows there are enough " geek " t-shirt sites out there plastering the same tired old witticisms .
Maybe co-opt with one of them to actually bring about some new designs and donate a part of the profit toward such an initiative , otherwise , start your own and do so .
That 's about all I have for my rant .
I will leave you with this : Blake : A-I-D-A .
Attention , Interest , Decision , Action .
Attention - Do I have you attention ?
Interest - Are you interested ?
I know you are , because it 's fuck or walk .
You close or you hit the bricks .
Decision - Have you made your decision for Christ ?
And Action .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think his take on things is part of the problem that damages whatever brand might have been able to exist.
Linux is what I would call generically the flagship "product" of the F/OSS "Brand" (with the realization that I'm using all of those words deliberately imprecisely, like a typical user would).
People can't even agree on the name of it.
GNU/RMS GNU/wants GNU/it GNU/to GNU/be GNU/called GNU/something GNU/else, but most of the rest of the free world simply calls it Linux.
To others its "Ubuntu", and there is no other term for it.
I'm not sure you can take something that isn't centrally managed and effectively establish a firm brand on it.
It seems to me like while you can do your best to help improve an image, it still remains that the branding is only a product of what the public perceive it as.
While that may seem like a rather obvious statement, I don't think there is much that can be done until you clear up the internal squabbling.
Check the ego's at the door and allow for one group to handle standardization on naming and other "conventions".
Focus some funding/volunteer work toward softskills as well as development like marketing and advertising.
Have someone release a solid distro that has an easy to pronounce, catchy name (Ku-boon-TOO?
Ku-bun-TOO?  K-Ubun-TU?
I have heard it called all these things by different people.
If they can't figure out how to pronounce it, they won't like talking about it).
Find some people who are technically minded enough to be able to grasp what is going on, but at the same time capable of making catchy advertisements, have some donations or fundraisers to build revenue to plaster them on websites and maybe even TV.
Lord knows there are enough "geek" t-shirt sites out there plastering the same tired old witticisms.
Maybe co-opt with one of them to actually bring about some new designs and donate a part of the profit toward such an initiative, otherwise, start your own and do so.
That's about all I have for my rant.
I will leave you with this:  

Blake:  A-I-D-A.
Attention, Interest, Decision, Action.
Attention - Do I have you attention?
Interest - Are you interested?
I know you are, because it's fuck or walk.
You close or you hit the bricks.
Decision - Have you made your decision for Christ?
And Action.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225245</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225907</id>
	<title>ho8o</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244230560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">TCP/IP stack has hand...don't users. BSD/OS We 3on't sux0r as save Linux from a of Jordan Hubbard Users of BSD/OS. A CURRENT CORE WERE</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>TCP/IP stack has hand...do n't users .
BSD/OS We 3o n't sux0r as save Linux from a of Jordan Hubbard Users of BSD/OS .
A CURRENT CORE WERE [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TCP/IP stack has hand...don't users.
BSD/OS We 3on't sux0r as save Linux from a of Jordan Hubbard Users of BSD/OS.
A CURRENT CORE WERE [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28226537</id>
	<title>Re:Careful!</title>
	<author>skeeto</author>
	<datestamp>1244233620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Who started the bickering over the FS vs OSS terms? None other than Richard Stallman himself.</p></div><p>
Since the term "Free Software" is more than a decade older than "Open Source" you have that backwards.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who started the bickering over the FS vs OSS terms ?
None other than Richard Stallman himself .
Since the term " Free Software " is more than a decade older than " Open Source " you have that backwards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who started the bickering over the FS vs OSS terms?
None other than Richard Stallman himself.
Since the term "Free Software" is more than a decade older than "Open Source" you have that backwards.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225525</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225877</id>
	<title>Excellent Points</title>
	<author>Fantom42</author>
	<datestamp>1244230380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This guy makes some excellent points that will no doubt fall upon many deaf ears.</p><p>And to be honest its safe to ignore people like this if you are a hobbyist and don't care whether you will continue to have hardware support for your hobby machine.  After all, you can just have some fun reverse engineering the drivers you need.</p><p>The only reason to care about branding for open source and free software is if you actually expect businesses to embrace it and invest resources in developing things that work with it.  You know, to enable doing the kinds of things people have come to expect to be able to do with a desktop computer.</p><p>I remember a time when it was a fair challenge to get much more than vga out of xfree86 due to lack of drivers, and when many modems and ethernet cards simply didn't work in Linux.  Printers same thing.  Forget about a scanner or digital camera.  It was a pain in the butt for anyone with aspirations to actually have a desktop useful for much more than tinkering with itself.  This has always been a limitation of open source.  Things have gotten much better.  And for things to continue to get better, the community should put some effort into thinking about others' perceptions of open source and trying to improve them.  This is how people (including executives with very little technical interest or knowledge) make decisions end up impacting our community.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This guy makes some excellent points that will no doubt fall upon many deaf ears.And to be honest its safe to ignore people like this if you are a hobbyist and do n't care whether you will continue to have hardware support for your hobby machine .
After all , you can just have some fun reverse engineering the drivers you need.The only reason to care about branding for open source and free software is if you actually expect businesses to embrace it and invest resources in developing things that work with it .
You know , to enable doing the kinds of things people have come to expect to be able to do with a desktop computer.I remember a time when it was a fair challenge to get much more than vga out of xfree86 due to lack of drivers , and when many modems and ethernet cards simply did n't work in Linux .
Printers same thing .
Forget about a scanner or digital camera .
It was a pain in the butt for anyone with aspirations to actually have a desktop useful for much more than tinkering with itself .
This has always been a limitation of open source .
Things have gotten much better .
And for things to continue to get better , the community should put some effort into thinking about others ' perceptions of open source and trying to improve them .
This is how people ( including executives with very little technical interest or knowledge ) make decisions end up impacting our community .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This guy makes some excellent points that will no doubt fall upon many deaf ears.And to be honest its safe to ignore people like this if you are a hobbyist and don't care whether you will continue to have hardware support for your hobby machine.
After all, you can just have some fun reverse engineering the drivers you need.The only reason to care about branding for open source and free software is if you actually expect businesses to embrace it and invest resources in developing things that work with it.
You know, to enable doing the kinds of things people have come to expect to be able to do with a desktop computer.I remember a time when it was a fair challenge to get much more than vga out of xfree86 due to lack of drivers, and when many modems and ethernet cards simply didn't work in Linux.
Printers same thing.
Forget about a scanner or digital camera.
It was a pain in the butt for anyone with aspirations to actually have a desktop useful for much more than tinkering with itself.
This has always been a limitation of open source.
Things have gotten much better.
And for things to continue to get better, the community should put some effort into thinking about others' perceptions of open source and trying to improve them.
This is how people (including executives with very little technical interest or knowledge) make decisions end up impacting our community.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225823</id>
	<title>The Bike Race Breakaway Metaphor</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244230140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In bicycle racing oftentimes a group of people zoom out ahead of the pack (the peloton) and try to race to the front.</p><p>The only way those people can even hope to get to the end before the peloton is if they work together and share the aerodynamic load of breaking the wind.  Sometimes they work together harmoniously right to almost the very end--then they race it out between themselves.</p><p>Most times though, for various tactical reasons, they get squirreley with each other and refuse to cooperate evenly to maximize speed.  While they're squirreling around, the peloton bears down on them and swallows them up.</p><p>BSD and GNU are on a breakaway from closed source software.  They each want an ecosystem where sharing and cooperation are the primary values.  They each take different routes.  BND is not as radical as GNU, but GNU does more to hamper closed software.  Nevertheless, they are each in a breakaway from the closed source peloton.</p><p>Mindshare gains are to not accomplished by wasting energy squabbling with your logical ally.  AFTER sufficient mindshare has been won from closed source--then squabble and be stupid if you want to!  But meanwhile--cooperate on the breakaway!!!!  It makes for a better race!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In bicycle racing oftentimes a group of people zoom out ahead of the pack ( the peloton ) and try to race to the front.The only way those people can even hope to get to the end before the peloton is if they work together and share the aerodynamic load of breaking the wind .
Sometimes they work together harmoniously right to almost the very end--then they race it out between themselves.Most times though , for various tactical reasons , they get squirreley with each other and refuse to cooperate evenly to maximize speed .
While they 're squirreling around , the peloton bears down on them and swallows them up.BSD and GNU are on a breakaway from closed source software .
They each want an ecosystem where sharing and cooperation are the primary values .
They each take different routes .
BND is not as radical as GNU , but GNU does more to hamper closed software .
Nevertheless , they are each in a breakaway from the closed source peloton.Mindshare gains are to not accomplished by wasting energy squabbling with your logical ally .
AFTER sufficient mindshare has been won from closed source--then squabble and be stupid if you want to !
But meanwhile--cooperate on the breakaway ! ! ! !
It makes for a better race !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In bicycle racing oftentimes a group of people zoom out ahead of the pack (the peloton) and try to race to the front.The only way those people can even hope to get to the end before the peloton is if they work together and share the aerodynamic load of breaking the wind.
Sometimes they work together harmoniously right to almost the very end--then they race it out between themselves.Most times though, for various tactical reasons, they get squirreley with each other and refuse to cooperate evenly to maximize speed.
While they're squirreling around, the peloton bears down on them and swallows them up.BSD and GNU are on a breakaway from closed source software.
They each want an ecosystem where sharing and cooperation are the primary values.
They each take different routes.
BND is not as radical as GNU, but GNU does more to hamper closed software.
Nevertheless, they are each in a breakaway from the closed source peloton.Mindshare gains are to not accomplished by wasting energy squabbling with your logical ally.
AFTER sufficient mindshare has been won from closed source--then squabble and be stupid if you want to!
But meanwhile--cooperate on the breakaway!!!!
It makes for a better race!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28226467</id>
	<title>Re:One should never RTFA, indeed ...</title>
	<author>skeeto</author>
	<datestamp>1244233320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you hadn't stopped reading there you would understand the context that makes this statement true. Read the next paragraph and it will make sense. In fact, TFA addresses important differences between Open Source and Free Software.</p><p>Hint: in your quoted sentence he is referring to a specific, older definition for Open Source.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you had n't stopped reading there you would understand the context that makes this statement true .
Read the next paragraph and it will make sense .
In fact , TFA addresses important differences between Open Source and Free Software.Hint : in your quoted sentence he is referring to a specific , older definition for Open Source .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you hadn't stopped reading there you would understand the context that makes this statement true.
Read the next paragraph and it will make sense.
In fact, TFA addresses important differences between Open Source and Free Software.Hint: in your quoted sentence he is referring to a specific, older definition for Open Source.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225179</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28229587</id>
	<title>Re:False friends, as well as false enemies</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244215140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The 3rd party is the one you gave the software to and offered source code to. The 2nd party is the one distributing  it. The 1st party would be the one the 2nd party obtained it from. That's how I always read it anyway - it's also clear when you consider the context of the entire license and some of the other options.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The 3rd party is the one you gave the software to and offered source code to .
The 2nd party is the one distributing it .
The 1st party would be the one the 2nd party obtained it from .
That 's how I always read it anyway - it 's also clear when you consider the context of the entire license and some of the other options .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The 3rd party is the one you gave the software to and offered source code to.
The 2nd party is the one distributing  it.
The 1st party would be the one the 2nd party obtained it from.
That's how I always read it anyway - it's also clear when you consider the context of the entire license and some of the other options.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28227857</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28226831</id>
	<title>Re:FOSS Brand?!</title>
	<author>ivucica</author>
	<datestamp>1244235360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Well, Linux is a brand (only the fatally jealous calls is GNU/Linux<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:) )</p></div><p>I'm not fatally jealous, I'm not involved with GNU, and even think that FSF is a bit too radical sometimes (not that we don't need that, too). However, saying it's Linux is disrespectful. Even saying it's GNU/Linux doesn't include all who wrote software for various distros, but it's much much closer. Much software and almost all current distros would break if you removed GNU components; start with bash, and go on with gcc, and go on with automake. And no, I don't consider bash replaceable, and gcc is a quite complex piece of software to get replaced (especially g++).</p><p>So is it nowadays called jealousy to give credit where credit is due? I don't insist others call it that way. But I don't have anything to be jealous of (see first sentence).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , Linux is a brand ( only the fatally jealous calls is GNU/Linux : ) ) I 'm not fatally jealous , I 'm not involved with GNU , and even think that FSF is a bit too radical sometimes ( not that we do n't need that , too ) .
However , saying it 's Linux is disrespectful .
Even saying it 's GNU/Linux does n't include all who wrote software for various distros , but it 's much much closer .
Much software and almost all current distros would break if you removed GNU components ; start with bash , and go on with gcc , and go on with automake .
And no , I do n't consider bash replaceable , and gcc is a quite complex piece of software to get replaced ( especially g + + ) .So is it nowadays called jealousy to give credit where credit is due ?
I do n't insist others call it that way .
But I do n't have anything to be jealous of ( see first sentence ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, Linux is a brand (only the fatally jealous calls is GNU/Linux :) )I'm not fatally jealous, I'm not involved with GNU, and even think that FSF is a bit too radical sometimes (not that we don't need that, too).
However, saying it's Linux is disrespectful.
Even saying it's GNU/Linux doesn't include all who wrote software for various distros, but it's much much closer.
Much software and almost all current distros would break if you removed GNU components; start with bash, and go on with gcc, and go on with automake.
And no, I don't consider bash replaceable, and gcc is a quite complex piece of software to get replaced (especially g++).So is it nowadays called jealousy to give credit where credit is due?
I don't insist others call it that way.
But I don't have anything to be jealous of (see first sentence).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225547</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28226175</id>
	<title>Loosely translated...</title>
	<author>TrebleJunkie</author>
	<datestamp>1244231940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Somebody please tell RMS to <a href="http://www.francis.edu/" title="francis.edu">StFU</a> [francis.edu]."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Somebody please tell RMS to StFU [ francis.edu ] .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Somebody please tell RMS to StFU [francis.edu].
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1550212_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28227669
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225111
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1550212_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28227867
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225473
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1550212_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28233961
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225547
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225215
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1550212_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28227255
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225111
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1550212_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28227389
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225187
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1550212_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28231493
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225111
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1550212_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225739
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225187
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1550212_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28226813
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225407
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1550212_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28226073
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225111
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1550212_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28232103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225547
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225215
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1550212_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28226275
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225179
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1550212_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225585
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225179
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1550212_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28227461
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225111
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1550212_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28229339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225441
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225289
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1550212_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225649
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225245
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1550212_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28229587
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28227857
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28226005
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225125
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1550212_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28227617
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225187
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1550212_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28232509
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225111
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1550212_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28226231
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225823
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1550212_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225865
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225245
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1550212_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28226537
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225525
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1550212_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225821
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225187
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1550212_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28229509
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225125
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1550212_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28226831
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225547
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225215
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1550212_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28230099
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225525
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1550212_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28227677
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28226005
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225125
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1550212_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28226573
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225187
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1550212_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28239515
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28229849
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225519
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1550212_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28226467
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225179
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1550212_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28231177
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225525
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1550212_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225665
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225111
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1550212_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28226985
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225525
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1550212_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225841
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225407
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1550212_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225111
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1550212_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28226217
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225823
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1550212_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225667
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225179
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_1550212.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225245
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225865
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225649
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_1550212.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225407
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28226813
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225841
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_1550212.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225289
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225441
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28229339
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_1550212.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225179
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28226275
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28226467
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225585
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225667
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_1550212.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225525
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28226985
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28226537
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28231177
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28230099
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_1550212.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225215
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225547
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28233961
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28232103
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28226831
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_1550212.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225519
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28229849
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28239515
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_1550212.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225755
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_1550212.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225125
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28226005
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28227857
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28229587
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28227677
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28229509
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_1550212.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225187
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225821
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28227617
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225739
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28227389
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28226573
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_1550212.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225473
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28227867
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_1550212.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225355
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_1550212.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225823
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28226231
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28226217
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_1550212.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225461
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_1550212.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225155
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_1550212.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225111
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225665
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28227255
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28232509
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28226073
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28231493
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28227461
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28227669
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1550212.28225267
</commentlist>
</conversation>
