<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_12_1735241</id>
	<title>SAP &mdash; Open Source Friend Or Foe ?</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1244832240000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://twitter.com/pavithrans" rel="nofollow">pavithran</a> writes <i>"Does SAP, one of the largest business companies offering software solutions, support FOSS as a movement?  Why is SAP looking at closed and open source in a similar way? This shows lot of ambiguity in SAP's attitude towards open source software. I found an interesting article in Linux Journal on <a href="http://www.linuxjournal.com/content/sap-open-sources-friend-or-foe">whether SAP is an open source friend or foe</a>, by <a href="http://opendotdotdot.blogspot.com/">Glyn Moody</a>. Here's a quote from the article: 'For an outfit that calls itself "the world's largest business software company," the German software giant <a href="http://www.sap.com/">SAP</a> is relatively little-known in the open source world. With 51,500 employees, a turnover of 11.5 billion euros ($16 billion) last year, and operating profits of 2.7 billion euros ($3.8 billion), SAP is clearly one of the heavyweights in the computer world. Given that huge clout, SAP's attitude to open source is important; and yet it is hard to tell whether it is really free software's friend or its foe. ...  A company that wished open source well would back these ideas. One that <em>really</em> supported free software would also fight against software patents. So, while SAP's involvement in <a href="http://eclipse.org/">Eclipse</a> and investment in open source companies is welcome &mdash; and pretty self-interested, it has to be said, given that it presumably hopes to make a profit on them &mdash; it's not really enough cancel out its unhelpful attitude and statements elsewhere. If it wants to be a serious, respected player in the world of open source, as befits its size, it must do better.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>pavithran writes " Does SAP , one of the largest business companies offering software solutions , support FOSS as a movement ?
Why is SAP looking at closed and open source in a similar way ?
This shows lot of ambiguity in SAP 's attitude towards open source software .
I found an interesting article in Linux Journal on whether SAP is an open source friend or foe , by Glyn Moody .
Here 's a quote from the article : 'For an outfit that calls itself " the world 's largest business software company , " the German software giant SAP is relatively little-known in the open source world .
With 51,500 employees , a turnover of 11.5 billion euros ( $ 16 billion ) last year , and operating profits of 2.7 billion euros ( $ 3.8 billion ) , SAP is clearly one of the heavyweights in the computer world .
Given that huge clout , SAP 's attitude to open source is important ; and yet it is hard to tell whether it is really free software 's friend or its foe .
... A company that wished open source well would back these ideas .
One that really supported free software would also fight against software patents .
So , while SAP 's involvement in Eclipse and investment in open source companies is welcome    and pretty self-interested , it has to be said , given that it presumably hopes to make a profit on them    it 's not really enough cancel out its unhelpful attitude and statements elsewhere .
If it wants to be a serious , respected player in the world of open source , as befits its size , it must do better .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>pavithran writes "Does SAP, one of the largest business companies offering software solutions, support FOSS as a movement?
Why is SAP looking at closed and open source in a similar way?
This shows lot of ambiguity in SAP's attitude towards open source software.
I found an interesting article in Linux Journal on whether SAP is an open source friend or foe, by Glyn Moody.
Here's a quote from the article: 'For an outfit that calls itself "the world's largest business software company," the German software giant SAP is relatively little-known in the open source world.
With 51,500 employees, a turnover of 11.5 billion euros ($16 billion) last year, and operating profits of 2.7 billion euros ($3.8 billion), SAP is clearly one of the heavyweights in the computer world.
Given that huge clout, SAP's attitude to open source is important; and yet it is hard to tell whether it is really free software's friend or its foe.
...  A company that wished open source well would back these ideas.
One that really supported free software would also fight against software patents.
So, while SAP's involvement in Eclipse and investment in open source companies is welcome — and pretty self-interested, it has to be said, given that it presumably hopes to make a profit on them — it's not really enough cancel out its unhelpful attitude and statements elsewhere.
If it wants to be a serious, respected player in the world of open source, as befits its size, it must do better.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28312335</id>
	<title>I do not understand this attitude</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244837580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I use open source software extensively in my work. I have also contributed open source code (not all GPL, but a good fraction of it is). I like open source for many things. <br> <br>

However, I do not understand this expectation that software companies should help open source. Microsoft is a special case - it tried to work with hardware vendors to delay the rise of Linux, Openoffice, etc. However, when it comes to pure software competition, a company that makes its living off software (and is not interested in the pure free-software-pay-for-support model than open source encourages) cannot be expected to act against its own financial interests to earn brownie points from the open source crowd.<br> <br>

Sometimes those interests will mandate open source participation. Other times, they won't. Interested in getting them to support open source ? Change market conditions to make it their interest to participate in open source. Open source might be religion to some, but it is simply an instrument for most of us. Pretty good instrument in most cases, but nothing more.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I use open source software extensively in my work .
I have also contributed open source code ( not all GPL , but a good fraction of it is ) .
I like open source for many things .
However , I do not understand this expectation that software companies should help open source .
Microsoft is a special case - it tried to work with hardware vendors to delay the rise of Linux , Openoffice , etc .
However , when it comes to pure software competition , a company that makes its living off software ( and is not interested in the pure free-software-pay-for-support model than open source encourages ) can not be expected to act against its own financial interests to earn brownie points from the open source crowd .
Sometimes those interests will mandate open source participation .
Other times , they wo n't .
Interested in getting them to support open source ?
Change market conditions to make it their interest to participate in open source .
Open source might be religion to some , but it is simply an instrument for most of us .
Pretty good instrument in most cases , but nothing more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I use open source software extensively in my work.
I have also contributed open source code (not all GPL, but a good fraction of it is).
I like open source for many things.
However, I do not understand this expectation that software companies should help open source.
Microsoft is a special case - it tried to work with hardware vendors to delay the rise of Linux, Openoffice, etc.
However, when it comes to pure software competition, a company that makes its living off software (and is not interested in the pure free-software-pay-for-support model than open source encourages) cannot be expected to act against its own financial interests to earn brownie points from the open source crowd.
Sometimes those interests will mandate open source participation.
Other times, they won't.
Interested in getting them to support open source ?
Change market conditions to make it their interest to participate in open source.
Open source might be religion to some, but it is simply an instrument for most of us.
Pretty good instrument in most cases, but nothing more.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28318219</id>
	<title>Re:It's pretty simple</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244884260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On the other hand, you \_can\_ look at large portions of their code. The source is kind of open, as it simply is in the database.Of course, you should keep your hands off, if you don't want to loose support.</p><p>btw.: the money ABAP-developers earn should be regarded as solatium.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On the other hand , you \ _can \ _ look at large portions of their code .
The source is kind of open , as it simply is in the database.Of course , you should keep your hands off , if you do n't want to loose support.btw .
: the money ABAP-developers earn should be regarded as solatium .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the other hand, you \_can\_ look at large portions of their code.
The source is kind of open, as it simply is in the database.Of course, you should keep your hands off, if you don't want to loose support.btw.
: the money ABAP-developers earn should be regarded as solatium.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28312011</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28317455</id>
	<title>By Shai Agassi (senior VP) about open source:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244829120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2145809/sap-dismisses-open-source</p><p>Open source will fail to deliver innovation and is more likely to break applications, according to Shai Agassi, president of the product and technology group at SAP.</p><p>"We all talk about how great Linux is," he said at a speaking engagement at the Churchill Club in Silicon Valley.</p><p>Advertisement"But if you look at the most innovative desktop today, Microsoft's Vista is not copying Linux, it is copying Apple."</p><p>"Intellectual property [IP] socialism is the worst that can happen to any IP-based society," he said. "And we are an IP-based society. If there is no way to protect IP, there is no reason to invest in IP."</p><p>screw SAP.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2145809/sap-dismisses-open-sourceOpen source will fail to deliver innovation and is more likely to break applications , according to Shai Agassi , president of the product and technology group at SAP .
" We all talk about how great Linux is , " he said at a speaking engagement at the Churchill Club in Silicon Valley.Advertisement " But if you look at the most innovative desktop today , Microsoft 's Vista is not copying Linux , it is copying Apple .
" " Intellectual property [ IP ] socialism is the worst that can happen to any IP-based society , " he said .
" And we are an IP-based society .
If there is no way to protect IP , there is no reason to invest in IP .
" screw SAP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2145809/sap-dismisses-open-sourceOpen source will fail to deliver innovation and is more likely to break applications, according to Shai Agassi, president of the product and technology group at SAP.
"We all talk about how great Linux is," he said at a speaking engagement at the Churchill Club in Silicon Valley.Advertisement"But if you look at the most innovative desktop today, Microsoft's Vista is not copying Linux, it is copying Apple.
""Intellectual property [IP] socialism is the worst that can happen to any IP-based society," he said.
"And we are an IP-based society.
If there is no way to protect IP, there is no reason to invest in IP.
"screw SAP.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28319217</id>
	<title>Re:Answer: Publicly Traded Company</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244901600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Saying that SAP is on SAP's side is an even more misleading oversimplification. Because how are you going to define that side? Especially since it's a publicly traded company. Does SAP even know what its side looks like? Does it always know what is in its best interest? And exactly whose best interest is that anyway? Who are the current owners? Who are in charge, which people have the most influence on the company's strategy? And which ones of them have any interests which are related to open source?</p><p>Find this out and you have a decent idea whether SAP is a friend or foe of open source. And what's more important, you know where to start if you want to change it.</p><p>Answering an interesting question with an obvious and braindead answer distracts from and might even prevent any useful answers, even though the question was formulated a but simple.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Saying that SAP is on SAP 's side is an even more misleading oversimplification .
Because how are you going to define that side ?
Especially since it 's a publicly traded company .
Does SAP even know what its side looks like ?
Does it always know what is in its best interest ?
And exactly whose best interest is that anyway ?
Who are the current owners ?
Who are in charge , which people have the most influence on the company 's strategy ?
And which ones of them have any interests which are related to open source ? Find this out and you have a decent idea whether SAP is a friend or foe of open source .
And what 's more important , you know where to start if you want to change it.Answering an interesting question with an obvious and braindead answer distracts from and might even prevent any useful answers , even though the question was formulated a but simple .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Saying that SAP is on SAP's side is an even more misleading oversimplification.
Because how are you going to define that side?
Especially since it's a publicly traded company.
Does SAP even know what its side looks like?
Does it always know what is in its best interest?
And exactly whose best interest is that anyway?
Who are the current owners?
Who are in charge, which people have the most influence on the company's strategy?
And which ones of them have any interests which are related to open source?Find this out and you have a decent idea whether SAP is a friend or foe of open source.
And what's more important, you know where to start if you want to change it.Answering an interesting question with an obvious and braindead answer distracts from and might even prevent any useful answers, even though the question was formulated a but simple.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28312241</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28312587</id>
	<title>Re:It's pretty simple</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244838300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agreed.  You don't want to look at your code.  ABAP gives me a headache, and the way SAP designs their code.... I guess I'm just not smart enough to follow what's going on after the 20th INCLUDE within an INCLUDE within an INCLUDE.  It's poorly documented, and usually the comments [in the code] are in German.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed .
You do n't want to look at your code .
ABAP gives me a headache , and the way SAP designs their code.... I guess I 'm just not smart enough to follow what 's going on after the 20th INCLUDE within an INCLUDE within an INCLUDE .
It 's poorly documented , and usually the comments [ in the code ] are in German .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed.
You don't want to look at your code.
ABAP gives me a headache, and the way SAP designs their code.... I guess I'm just not smart enough to follow what's going on after the 20th INCLUDE within an INCLUDE within an INCLUDE.
It's poorly documented, and usually the comments [in the code] are in German.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28312011</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28312011</id>
	<title>It's pretty simple</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244836380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>SAP support Open Source in any tool that allows them to develop and interact with their product.<br>The gnomes of SAP will never open SAP up.</p><p>If you have ever looked at SAP structure or code you don't want that box open~</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>SAP support Open Source in any tool that allows them to develop and interact with their product.The gnomes of SAP will never open SAP up.If you have ever looked at SAP structure or code you do n't want that box open ~</tokentext>
<sentencetext>SAP support Open Source in any tool that allows them to develop and interact with their product.The gnomes of SAP will never open SAP up.If you have ever looked at SAP structure or code you don't want that box open~</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28312735</id>
	<title>Re:As an employee...</title>
	<author>jchawk</author>
	<datestamp>1244838900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Idealistic or not you hit the nail on the head with your post.</p><p>Plenty of companies look at software as a tool similar to a hammer or a lathe.  Which model or version of the hammer will get the job done for me in the most cost-effective manner.</p><p>I work for a large industrial manufacture and we are deploying plenty of Linux right along side HP-UX, Microsoft 2003,  AS400 and Mainframe.  What tool makes the most sense for the problem we are trying to solve?</p><p>I honestly believe the longer you work for a for profit company the more you start to understand the statement "Choose the right tool for the job."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Idealistic or not you hit the nail on the head with your post.Plenty of companies look at software as a tool similar to a hammer or a lathe .
Which model or version of the hammer will get the job done for me in the most cost-effective manner.I work for a large industrial manufacture and we are deploying plenty of Linux right along side HP-UX , Microsoft 2003 , AS400 and Mainframe .
What tool makes the most sense for the problem we are trying to solve ? I honestly believe the longer you work for a for profit company the more you start to understand the statement " Choose the right tool for the job .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Idealistic or not you hit the nail on the head with your post.Plenty of companies look at software as a tool similar to a hammer or a lathe.
Which model or version of the hammer will get the job done for me in the most cost-effective manner.I work for a large industrial manufacture and we are deploying plenty of Linux right along side HP-UX, Microsoft 2003,  AS400 and Mainframe.
What tool makes the most sense for the problem we are trying to solve?I honestly believe the longer you work for a for profit company the more you start to understand the statement "Choose the right tool for the job.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28312293</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28316423</id>
	<title>Foe</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244817060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They sold MaxDB to MySQL, who open sourced it. After MySQL and various contributors improved MaxDB to the point where it was useful, they bought it back and immediately closed the source. Those are pretty clearly the actions of a ardent foe of open source.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They sold MaxDB to MySQL , who open sourced it .
After MySQL and various contributors improved MaxDB to the point where it was useful , they bought it back and immediately closed the source .
Those are pretty clearly the actions of a ardent foe of open source .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They sold MaxDB to MySQL, who open sourced it.
After MySQL and various contributors improved MaxDB to the point where it was useful, they bought it back and immediately closed the source.
Those are pretty clearly the actions of a ardent foe of open source.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28313555</id>
	<title>Re:SAP is open source</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244798640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry , but no , altough they distrubute source for some of theyr components.</p><p>SAP is the worst shit company ever , ask anyone who have actually worked with that shit , its all about vendor lockin.</p><p>if you ever tought ms was bad at theyr worst , they was still second by far to SAP.</p><p>avoid that software by any means possible if you dont want to be locked into retarded crap and pay $1000 fee a hour for consultant work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , but no , altough they distrubute source for some of theyr components.SAP is the worst shit company ever , ask anyone who have actually worked with that shit , its all about vendor lockin.if you ever tought ms was bad at theyr worst , they was still second by far to SAP.avoid that software by any means possible if you dont want to be locked into retarded crap and pay $ 1000 fee a hour for consultant work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry , but no , altough they distrubute source for some of theyr components.SAP is the worst shit company ever , ask anyone who have actually worked with that shit , its all about vendor lockin.if you ever tought ms was bad at theyr worst , they was still second by far to SAP.avoid that software by any means possible if you dont want to be locked into retarded crap and pay $1000 fee a hour for consultant work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28312353</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28312199</id>
	<title>Re:I love the black and white thinking here....</title>
	<author>iPhr0stByt3</author>
	<datestamp>1244837040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Insightful?  I thought he was making fun of the article's seriousless when all SAP really supports is making money... like EVERY OTHER PUBLIC COMPANY.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Insightful ?
I thought he was making fun of the article 's seriousless when all SAP really supports is making money... like EVERY OTHER PUBLIC COMPANY .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Insightful?
I thought he was making fun of the article's seriousless when all SAP really supports is making money... like EVERY OTHER PUBLIC COMPANY.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28311927</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28326963</id>
	<title>False Impression</title>
	<author>bigizzy</author>
	<datestamp>1244999520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The article states that "If it wants to be a serious, respected player in the world of open source, as befits its size, it must do better."; - </p><p>What makes anyone think that SAP would care about being respected in the open source world? They are a large business and the stakeholders that they are rightfully interested in (like every other large business) are</p><ol>
<li>1. Their Investors/Shareholders</li><li>2. Their customers</li><li>3. Their employees.</li></ol><p>SAP uses Open Source where appropriate (as they should) to enhance shareholder value or customer value or for that matter employee value.</p><p>The real question should be "If the open source world wants to be a serious, respected entity in the world of business (the real world) then IT MUST DO BETTER. The Open Source World needs to demonstrate and evangelize models and mechanisms for monetizing the investment that business's make into Open Source. While this exists today, the focus on this is very limited with greater emphasis on "Open Source Purity" verses "Business Value through Open Source"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The article states that " If it wants to be a serious , respected player in the world of open source , as befits its size , it must do better .
" ; - What makes anyone think that SAP would care about being respected in the open source world ?
They are a large business and the stakeholders that they are rightfully interested in ( like every other large business ) are 1 .
Their Investors/Shareholders2 .
Their customers3 .
Their employees.SAP uses Open Source where appropriate ( as they should ) to enhance shareholder value or customer value or for that matter employee value.The real question should be " If the open source world wants to be a serious , respected entity in the world of business ( the real world ) then IT MUST DO BETTER .
The Open Source World needs to demonstrate and evangelize models and mechanisms for monetizing the investment that business 's make into Open Source .
While this exists today , the focus on this is very limited with greater emphasis on " Open Source Purity " verses " Business Value through Open Source "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article states that "If it wants to be a serious, respected player in the world of open source, as befits its size, it must do better.
"; - What makes anyone think that SAP would care about being respected in the open source world?
They are a large business and the stakeholders that they are rightfully interested in (like every other large business) are
1.
Their Investors/Shareholders2.
Their customers3.
Their employees.SAP uses Open Source where appropriate (as they should) to enhance shareholder value or customer value or for that matter employee value.The real question should be "If the open source world wants to be a serious, respected entity in the world of business (the real world) then IT MUST DO BETTER.
The Open Source World needs to demonstrate and evangelize models and mechanisms for monetizing the investment that business's make into Open Source.
While this exists today, the focus on this is very limited with greater emphasis on "Open Source Purity" verses "Business Value through Open Source"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28316591</id>
	<title>Re:Answer: Publicly Traded Company</title>
	<author>bastafidli</author>
	<datestamp>1244818620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They never sold SapDB to MySQL, they just had marketing and distribution agreement.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They never sold SapDB to MySQL , they just had marketing and distribution agreement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They never sold SapDB to MySQL, they just had marketing and distribution agreement.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28313319</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28313775</id>
	<title>Open source == corporate cooperation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244799480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No business involves themselves with open source out of idealism or philanthropy.   It's all about self-interest.</p><p>Here's the continuum of corporations and their open-source philosophies:</p><p>1) Sun:   Open-source almost all their products, gain developer adoption, get bottom-up adoption in corporations, and then charge for support.<br>2) IBM/Red Hat:   Contribute to the open source community in a large way, but maintain other products that are completely proprietary.    Talk up how "pro open source" you are in a massively exaggerated way, unlike Sun that quietly walks the walk.<br>3) Apple: Open source some stuff, close source most others.  Definitely take more from the community that you give.<br>4) Microsoft:  Open source nothing.  Publicly slam open source:  Proprietary development all the way.</p><p>SAP hasn't figured out where it is on the continuum.   It's that simple.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No business involves themselves with open source out of idealism or philanthropy .
It 's all about self-interest.Here 's the continuum of corporations and their open-source philosophies : 1 ) Sun : Open-source almost all their products , gain developer adoption , get bottom-up adoption in corporations , and then charge for support.2 ) IBM/Red Hat : Contribute to the open source community in a large way , but maintain other products that are completely proprietary .
Talk up how " pro open source " you are in a massively exaggerated way , unlike Sun that quietly walks the walk.3 ) Apple : Open source some stuff , close source most others .
Definitely take more from the community that you give.4 ) Microsoft : Open source nothing .
Publicly slam open source : Proprietary development all the way.SAP has n't figured out where it is on the continuum .
It 's that simple .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No business involves themselves with open source out of idealism or philanthropy.
It's all about self-interest.Here's the continuum of corporations and their open-source philosophies:1) Sun:   Open-source almost all their products, gain developer adoption, get bottom-up adoption in corporations, and then charge for support.2) IBM/Red Hat:   Contribute to the open source community in a large way, but maintain other products that are completely proprietary.
Talk up how "pro open source" you are in a massively exaggerated way, unlike Sun that quietly walks the walk.3) Apple: Open source some stuff, close source most others.
Definitely take more from the community that you give.4) Microsoft:  Open source nothing.
Publicly slam open source:  Proprietary development all the way.SAP hasn't figured out where it is on the continuum.
It's that simple.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28313191</id>
	<title>The answer is simple</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244797380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>SAP is <em>nobody's</em> friend. They're the enemy of all mankind.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>SAP is nobody 's friend .
They 're the enemy of all mankind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>SAP is nobody's friend.
They're the enemy of all mankind.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28313213</id>
	<title>What do you expect?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244797440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Y'know, this kind of article is exactly the reason why we're always having conversations about whether or not Linux (and other FOSS) is ready for general purpose use.  Here you have all these open-source advocates, telling anyone who'll listen how great FOSS is, and how it's got this low TCO.  That sounds great, but then it turns out there are strings attached.  You're a bad FOSS citizen if you're not contributing some completely unquantified amount back to the project.  Look, guys, you can't give something away for FREE! and then start laying a guilt trip on whoever took you up on the offer.  If you expect X amount of contribution from the users of the software, then you need to move to a licensing model that supports that.</p><p>-</p><p>This entire, whiny article sounds like the Chotchke's manager trying to get his employees to wear more than 15 pieces of flair.  If you have some expectation, then make that expectation known.  Don't lie about your expectation.  If you expect your employees to wear 37 pieces of flair, then make that expectation clear.  If you expect users of your software to contribute in some specific amount, then make that expectation clear.  But if you lie about your expectations, don't bitch about it when they aren't met.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Y'know , this kind of article is exactly the reason why we 're always having conversations about whether or not Linux ( and other FOSS ) is ready for general purpose use .
Here you have all these open-source advocates , telling anyone who 'll listen how great FOSS is , and how it 's got this low TCO .
That sounds great , but then it turns out there are strings attached .
You 're a bad FOSS citizen if you 're not contributing some completely unquantified amount back to the project .
Look , guys , you ca n't give something away for FREE !
and then start laying a guilt trip on whoever took you up on the offer .
If you expect X amount of contribution from the users of the software , then you need to move to a licensing model that supports that.-This entire , whiny article sounds like the Chotchke 's manager trying to get his employees to wear more than 15 pieces of flair .
If you have some expectation , then make that expectation known .
Do n't lie about your expectation .
If you expect your employees to wear 37 pieces of flair , then make that expectation clear .
If you expect users of your software to contribute in some specific amount , then make that expectation clear .
But if you lie about your expectations , do n't bitch about it when they are n't met .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Y'know, this kind of article is exactly the reason why we're always having conversations about whether or not Linux (and other FOSS) is ready for general purpose use.
Here you have all these open-source advocates, telling anyone who'll listen how great FOSS is, and how it's got this low TCO.
That sounds great, but then it turns out there are strings attached.
You're a bad FOSS citizen if you're not contributing some completely unquantified amount back to the project.
Look, guys, you can't give something away for FREE!
and then start laying a guilt trip on whoever took you up on the offer.
If you expect X amount of contribution from the users of the software, then you need to move to a licensing model that supports that.-This entire, whiny article sounds like the Chotchke's manager trying to get his employees to wear more than 15 pieces of flair.
If you have some expectation, then make that expectation known.
Don't lie about your expectation.
If you expect your employees to wear 37 pieces of flair, then make that expectation clear.
If you expect users of your software to contribute in some specific amount, then make that expectation clear.
But if you lie about your expectations, don't bitch about it when they aren't met.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28313059</id>
	<title>open source or free software (paging RMS)</title>
	<author>bluescreenbert</author>
	<datestamp>1244839980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt; SAP's attitude to open source is important; and yet it is hard to tell whether it is really free software's friend

The article publisher does not seem to know enough to tell open source and free software apart. There are very few comanies that endorse free software but many that endorse open source. So, what is the article about?

Please call RMS to have the difference between open source and free software explained to you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; SAP 's attitude to open source is important ; and yet it is hard to tell whether it is really free software 's friend The article publisher does not seem to know enough to tell open source and free software apart .
There are very few comanies that endorse free software but many that endorse open source .
So , what is the article about ?
Please call RMS to have the difference between open source and free software explained to you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; SAP's attitude to open source is important; and yet it is hard to tell whether it is really free software's friend

The article publisher does not seem to know enough to tell open source and free software apart.
There are very few comanies that endorse free software but many that endorse open source.
So, what is the article about?
Please call RMS to have the difference between open source and free software explained to you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28313489</id>
	<title>Re:FOSS Zealotry at its finest</title>
	<author>morgan\_greywolf</author>
	<datestamp>1244798400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agreed.  It doesn't matter.  If what some are saying is true, <a href="http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1021" title="ibiblio.org" rel="nofollow">SAP, Microsoft, and all other publishers of closed-source software are slowly becoming irrelevant</a> [ibiblio.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed .
It does n't matter .
If what some are saying is true , SAP , Microsoft , and all other publishers of closed-source software are slowly becoming irrelevant [ ibiblio.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed.
It doesn't matter.
If what some are saying is true, SAP, Microsoft, and all other publishers of closed-source software are slowly becoming irrelevant [ibiblio.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28311983</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28314851</id>
	<title>Re:SAP - What Do They Do?</title>
	<author>audunr</author>
	<datestamp>1244804880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I use SAP every day, and I understand why they don't describe it on their web site in plain text. They should consider burning their source code, not opening it up.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I use SAP every day , and I understand why they do n't describe it on their web site in plain text .
They should consider burning their source code , not opening it up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I use SAP every day, and I understand why they don't describe it on their web site in plain text.
They should consider burning their source code, not opening it up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28312161</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28318559</id>
	<title>Re:Foe</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244890380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, they open sourced their variant of ADABAS D as SAP DB, then sold it (or rather its distribution and support) to MySQL who rebranded it to MaxDB. SAP kept the development team and support for SAP customers while all non-SAP customers were handled by MySQL. For various reasons the GPL project MaxDB didn't take off but I doubt that missing commitment from SAP played a major role.<br>The first problem was that there were practically no external contributions as the code base is very complex and at that time important parts of it were PASCAL. You can compare this with OpenOffice.<br>The second problem was missing commitment from MySQL. They saw MaxDB more as a competition to their own products and didn't really want to get into the Enterprise DBMS market.<br>The largest obstacle was the distrust that an open source Enterprise DBMS encountered and especially one that is not "made in USA" and doesn't share the limitations termed as features that a certain other DBMS sports.<br>When the market share didn't improve they decided to end the cooperation with MySQL and close sourced MaxDB again. It's a pity for me not being able to look at the source code anymore but I doubt that there is a large number of people affected by this. They didn't have any benefits from open source as their own development team was the only contributor and had the disadvantage that their competition could study in detail what they were doing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , they open sourced their variant of ADABAS D as SAP DB , then sold it ( or rather its distribution and support ) to MySQL who rebranded it to MaxDB .
SAP kept the development team and support for SAP customers while all non-SAP customers were handled by MySQL .
For various reasons the GPL project MaxDB did n't take off but I doubt that missing commitment from SAP played a major role.The first problem was that there were practically no external contributions as the code base is very complex and at that time important parts of it were PASCAL .
You can compare this with OpenOffice.The second problem was missing commitment from MySQL .
They saw MaxDB more as a competition to their own products and did n't really want to get into the Enterprise DBMS market.The largest obstacle was the distrust that an open source Enterprise DBMS encountered and especially one that is not " made in USA " and does n't share the limitations termed as features that a certain other DBMS sports.When the market share did n't improve they decided to end the cooperation with MySQL and close sourced MaxDB again .
It 's a pity for me not being able to look at the source code anymore but I doubt that there is a large number of people affected by this .
They did n't have any benefits from open source as their own development team was the only contributor and had the disadvantage that their competition could study in detail what they were doing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, they open sourced their variant of ADABAS D as SAP DB, then sold it (or rather its distribution and support) to MySQL who rebranded it to MaxDB.
SAP kept the development team and support for SAP customers while all non-SAP customers were handled by MySQL.
For various reasons the GPL project MaxDB didn't take off but I doubt that missing commitment from SAP played a major role.The first problem was that there were practically no external contributions as the code base is very complex and at that time important parts of it were PASCAL.
You can compare this with OpenOffice.The second problem was missing commitment from MySQL.
They saw MaxDB more as a competition to their own products and didn't really want to get into the Enterprise DBMS market.The largest obstacle was the distrust that an open source Enterprise DBMS encountered and especially one that is not "made in USA" and doesn't share the limitations termed as features that a certain other DBMS sports.When the market share didn't improve they decided to end the cooperation with MySQL and close sourced MaxDB again.
It's a pity for me not being able to look at the source code anymore but I doubt that there is a large number of people affected by this.
They didn't have any benefits from open source as their own development team was the only contributor and had the disadvantage that their competition could study in detail what they were doing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28316423</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28312417</id>
	<title>It's a Mistake...</title>
	<author>SwashbucklingCowboy</author>
	<datestamp>1244837820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... to treat a large company such as SAP as monolithic.</p><p>Some inside of SAP will be FOSS friends, some will be foes, some will be neither.  It depends upon the individuals involved, their attitudes, roles and the incentives SAP gives them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... to treat a large company such as SAP as monolithic.Some inside of SAP will be FOSS friends , some will be foes , some will be neither .
It depends upon the individuals involved , their attitudes , roles and the incentives SAP gives them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... to treat a large company such as SAP as monolithic.Some inside of SAP will be FOSS friends, some will be foes, some will be neither.
It depends upon the individuals involved, their attitudes, roles and the incentives SAP gives them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28312513</id>
	<title>Heh</title>
	<author>hansraj</author>
	<datestamp>1244838120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was about to tag the story "kdawsonsucks"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-D</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was about to tag the story " kdawsonsucks " : -D</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was about to tag the story "kdawsonsucks" :-D</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28311921</id>
	<title>Answer: Publicly Traded Company</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244836080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>That is all.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That is all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28312241</id>
	<title>Re:Answer: Publicly Traded Company</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244837220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bingo. Whose side is SAP on? SAP's.</p><p>The question for the Open Source Community is how should Open Source relate to structurally self-interested entities? While the article's enumeration of SAP's relationship with Open Source is a useful starting point for discussion, framing the discussion as "Friend or Foe" is a misleading oversimplification.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bingo .
Whose side is SAP on ?
SAP 's.The question for the Open Source Community is how should Open Source relate to structurally self-interested entities ?
While the article 's enumeration of SAP 's relationship with Open Source is a useful starting point for discussion , framing the discussion as " Friend or Foe " is a misleading oversimplification .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bingo.
Whose side is SAP on?
SAP's.The question for the Open Source Community is how should Open Source relate to structurally self-interested entities?
While the article's enumeration of SAP's relationship with Open Source is a useful starting point for discussion, framing the discussion as "Friend or Foe" is a misleading oversimplification.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28311921</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28315865</id>
	<title>Friend or Foe ?</title>
	<author>gearloos</author>
	<datestamp>1244812020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The debate is still open wether SAP is even it's own customers Friend or Foe!!
I work at a ~20k employee company that went SAP this year. I have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING good to say about SAP. So I'll just shut up and keep my integrity, what little I have left heh</htmltext>
<tokenext>The debate is still open wether SAP is even it 's own customers Friend or Foe ! !
I work at a ~ 20k employee company that went SAP this year .
I have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING good to say about SAP .
So I 'll just shut up and keep my integrity , what little I have left heh</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The debate is still open wether SAP is even it's own customers Friend or Foe!!
I work at a ~20k employee company that went SAP this year.
I have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING good to say about SAP.
So I'll just shut up and keep my integrity, what little I have left heh</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28312161</id>
	<title>SAP - What Do They Do?</title>
	<author>sexconker</author>
	<datestamp>1244836920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What does SAP sell?<br>I checked their website, and it was filled to the brim with buzz words.</p><p>No actual product to buy.<br>Yet I bet they make billions selling it.</p><p>(Yes, I'm trolling)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What does SAP sell ? I checked their website , and it was filled to the brim with buzz words.No actual product to buy.Yet I bet they make billions selling it .
( Yes , I 'm trolling )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What does SAP sell?I checked their website, and it was filled to the brim with buzz words.No actual product to buy.Yet I bet they make billions selling it.
(Yes, I'm trolling)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28319065</id>
	<title>Re:It's a Mistake...</title>
	<author>aurelianito</author>
	<datestamp>1244899620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Anyway, the relevant thing is what is the emergent behaviour. You can say what the parent says even about M$, but it doesn't make less true than M$, as an entity, permanently attacks the free software idea|ideals. I believe that is what the article is about.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyway , the relevant thing is what is the emergent behaviour .
You can say what the parent says even about M $ , but it does n't make less true than M $ , as an entity , permanently attacks the free software idea | ideals .
I believe that is what the article is about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyway, the relevant thing is what is the emergent behaviour.
You can say what the parent says even about M$, but it doesn't make less true than M$, as an entity, permanently attacks the free software idea|ideals.
I believe that is what the article is about.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28312417</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28313319</id>
	<title>Re:Answer: Publicly Traded Company</title>
	<author>WinterSolstice</author>
	<datestamp>1244797740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>SAP has a track record of acting in only their own immediate term interest.</p><p>For years, SAP was best buddies with Oracle - then they switched to being best buddies with IBM. Then they bought Adabase and made that atrocity that is SAPDB.<br>Which they sold to MySQL.<br>Which is now spun off yet again.<br>Some products were Windows only for a very long time, and the GUI still is for the most part. The Java GUI is multi-platform, but still missing stuff.</p><p>As a long term SAP admin (basis) and DBA, the only thing you can count on from SAP is random acts of chaotic self-interest.<br>They don't play Friend or Foe, they just play Best Buddy of the Moment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>SAP has a track record of acting in only their own immediate term interest.For years , SAP was best buddies with Oracle - then they switched to being best buddies with IBM .
Then they bought Adabase and made that atrocity that is SAPDB.Which they sold to MySQL.Which is now spun off yet again.Some products were Windows only for a very long time , and the GUI still is for the most part .
The Java GUI is multi-platform , but still missing stuff.As a long term SAP admin ( basis ) and DBA , the only thing you can count on from SAP is random acts of chaotic self-interest.They do n't play Friend or Foe , they just play Best Buddy of the Moment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>SAP has a track record of acting in only their own immediate term interest.For years, SAP was best buddies with Oracle - then they switched to being best buddies with IBM.
Then they bought Adabase and made that atrocity that is SAPDB.Which they sold to MySQL.Which is now spun off yet again.Some products were Windows only for a very long time, and the GUI still is for the most part.
The Java GUI is multi-platform, but still missing stuff.As a long term SAP admin (basis) and DBA, the only thing you can count on from SAP is random acts of chaotic self-interest.They don't play Friend or Foe, they just play Best Buddy of the Moment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28312241</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28317349</id>
	<title>Beyond just that:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244827440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is there a large company SAP's adoption *didn't* sink with it's huge cost overruns?  Airgas is being courted by them, now; we're hearing lots of promises, but seeing no "sucess" cases of any size.</p><p>What's the attraction?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is there a large company SAP 's adoption * did n't * sink with it 's huge cost overruns ?
Airgas is being courted by them , now ; we 're hearing lots of promises , but seeing no " sucess " cases of any size.What 's the attraction ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is there a large company SAP's adoption *didn't* sink with it's huge cost overruns?
Airgas is being courted by them, now; we're hearing lots of promises, but seeing no "sucess" cases of any size.What's the attraction?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28312241</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28313791</id>
	<title>Re:Answer: Publicly Traded Company</title>
	<author>Narpak</author>
	<datestamp>1244799540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree. SAP, like most, probably evaluate Open Source products and try to see how they can use it to advance their own bottom line. I would argue that if they decide that one or more products can be used in a way that they find helpful or profitable; they will use them; if they don't; they will not. Not everything is either or "friend or foe". Outside a few core groups most people do not engage these matters as some sort of ideological competition; but rather try to find real world value in a product or service that they can benefit from. In this matter SAP is no different. And I would argue that trying to artificially create or impose "Us Vs Them" dichotomies is, as you say, oversimplification; and to some extend counter-productive as some of us find that sort of simplistic argument distasteful.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree .
SAP , like most , probably evaluate Open Source products and try to see how they can use it to advance their own bottom line .
I would argue that if they decide that one or more products can be used in a way that they find helpful or profitable ; they will use them ; if they do n't ; they will not .
Not everything is either or " friend or foe " .
Outside a few core groups most people do not engage these matters as some sort of ideological competition ; but rather try to find real world value in a product or service that they can benefit from .
In this matter SAP is no different .
And I would argue that trying to artificially create or impose " Us Vs Them " dichotomies is , as you say , oversimplification ; and to some extend counter-productive as some of us find that sort of simplistic argument distasteful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree.
SAP, like most, probably evaluate Open Source products and try to see how they can use it to advance their own bottom line.
I would argue that if they decide that one or more products can be used in a way that they find helpful or profitable; they will use them; if they don't; they will not.
Not everything is either or "friend or foe".
Outside a few core groups most people do not engage these matters as some sort of ideological competition; but rather try to find real world value in a product or service that they can benefit from.
In this matter SAP is no different.
And I would argue that trying to artificially create or impose "Us Vs Them" dichotomies is, as you say, oversimplification; and to some extend counter-productive as some of us find that sort of simplistic argument distasteful.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28312241</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28319177</id>
	<title>A little cheese?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244901120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That whole statement is just a big whine. SAP is a business and will do what it wants.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That whole statement is just a big whine .
SAP is a business and will do what it wants .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That whole statement is just a big whine.
SAP is a business and will do what it wants.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28316257</id>
	<title>Re:Answer: Publicly Traded Company</title>
	<author>bergerjs</author>
	<datestamp>1244815380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>SAP AG didn't buy ADABAS, they licensed it from Software AG.</htmltext>
<tokenext>SAP AG did n't buy ADABAS , they licensed it from Software AG .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>SAP AG didn't buy ADABAS, they licensed it from Software AG.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28313319</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28318309</id>
	<title>Re:SAP is open source</title>
	<author>lordholm</author>
	<datestamp>1244886240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"As a software development company, SAP has no other choice than to hold on to their patent portfolio, even if for defense reasons."</p><p>Is that why SAP was one of the largest actors in pro software patents campaign in Europe? I'd respect an opinion like the one from Oracle where they stated that they don't like patents, but since they exist they must use them for defensive reasons. SAP on the other hand put huge sums of money into actually trying to legalise software patents in the EU where they are not legal at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" As a software development company , SAP has no other choice than to hold on to their patent portfolio , even if for defense reasons .
" Is that why SAP was one of the largest actors in pro software patents campaign in Europe ?
I 'd respect an opinion like the one from Oracle where they stated that they do n't like patents , but since they exist they must use them for defensive reasons .
SAP on the other hand put huge sums of money into actually trying to legalise software patents in the EU where they are not legal at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"As a software development company, SAP has no other choice than to hold on to their patent portfolio, even if for defense reasons.
"Is that why SAP was one of the largest actors in pro software patents campaign in Europe?
I'd respect an opinion like the one from Oracle where they stated that they don't like patents, but since they exist they must use them for defensive reasons.
SAP on the other hand put huge sums of money into actually trying to legalise software patents in the EU where they are not legal at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28312353</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28315683</id>
	<title>Re:Answer: Publicly Traded Company</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1244810520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They don't play Friend or Foe, they just play Best Buddy of the Moment.</p></div><p>I hear they do have a very long-standing contract with the American Psychiatric Association to supply clients, though.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They do n't play Friend or Foe , they just play Best Buddy of the Moment.I hear they do have a very long-standing contract with the American Psychiatric Association to supply clients , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They don't play Friend or Foe, they just play Best Buddy of the Moment.I hear they do have a very long-standing contract with the American Psychiatric Association to supply clients, though.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28313319</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28318807</id>
	<title>Re:It's pretty simple</title>
	<author>Hognoxious</author>
	<datestamp>1244895540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How have you looked at it if it's closed?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How have you looked at it if it 's closed ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How have you looked at it if it's closed?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28312011</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28313005</id>
	<title>Re:FOSS Zealotry at its finest</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244839800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The ideology is simply unimportant in the grand scheme of things. Only zealots feel a need to paint everyone in black and white.<br>--<br>Without the Death Penalty there can be no justice.</p></div></blockquote><p>Some people just use freedom and democracy as a tool for their own goal, but sheesh, the ideology of freedom is not unimportant!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The ideology is simply unimportant in the grand scheme of things .
Only zealots feel a need to paint everyone in black and white.--Without the Death Penalty there can be no justice.Some people just use freedom and democracy as a tool for their own goal , but sheesh , the ideology of freedom is not unimportant !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The ideology is simply unimportant in the grand scheme of things.
Only zealots feel a need to paint everyone in black and white.--Without the Death Penalty there can be no justice.Some people just use freedom and democracy as a tool for their own goal, but sheesh, the ideology of freedom is not unimportant!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28311983</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28312865</id>
	<title>Re:I love the black and white thinking here....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244839320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not when it comes to politics. Generally I share your pragmatic approach and don't care about what most other companies think of open source.<br>But big Players like SAP have quite a notable influence on politics, especially on topics like software patents.<br>Here in Germany, I have the impression that many politicians only care about the interests of the big companies and forget about the rest of the business. When a company like SAP would clearly oppose to software patents because they are a threat to open source, politicians would listen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not when it comes to politics .
Generally I share your pragmatic approach and do n't care about what most other companies think of open source.But big Players like SAP have quite a notable influence on politics , especially on topics like software patents.Here in Germany , I have the impression that many politicians only care about the interests of the big companies and forget about the rest of the business .
When a company like SAP would clearly oppose to software patents because they are a threat to open source , politicians would listen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not when it comes to politics.
Generally I share your pragmatic approach and don't care about what most other companies think of open source.But big Players like SAP have quite a notable influence on politics, especially on topics like software patents.Here in Germany, I have the impression that many politicians only care about the interests of the big companies and forget about the rest of the business.
When a company like SAP would clearly oppose to software patents because they are a threat to open source, politicians would listen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28311927</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28315673</id>
	<title>Re:It's a Mistake...</title>
	<author>lenKite</author>
	<datestamp>1244810460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>(Disclaimer: I work for SAP)</i><p>
The slashdotter above has hit it right on the head. SAP is a large conservative company and there are varying views on open-source across the organisation. Many folks in the company love open source and attempt to evangelize it, others (usually oldies) treat it with deep suspicion and are ingrained with the 'lets-build-a-new-wheel-again' attitude.</p><p>
As far as SAP releasing its own products as open source - this is already true for the R3 platform - though it's technically 'view-only' open source (you aren't allowed to modify and distribute, but you can make changes for yourself if you really wished to).
</p><p>
SAP currently has a hard time decision-making on the technology front. Their primary business products are all built on the ABAP application server/platform but the infrastructure is visibly ageing there. Still, the ABAP VM still has some goodies which are still not available on modern day JVM's - isolation and multi-processing, which is becoming more important in today's parallel world. There have been some productive attempts to support Ruby as a new language on the ABAP VM, etc
</p><p>The SAP Java platform has had a backlash against it for being poor, buggy and not having the accustomed, almost legendary 7x24x365 reliability of ABAP AS. As a consequence, internally, there has been a movement 'back-to-ABAP' for many products. I don't particularly care for ABAP,  one will admit that it is good at what it does, but with the product acquisitions that we have made (business objects, etc), we have inherited different technologies and we need to learn to make all of them work in harmony</p><p>
Give us a few more years to work things out. Despite being an MNC, SAP in some ways  is still a traditional 'germanic' company at heart and things move slowly but surely here. It will some more time for people to realise the benefits of opening up their platform to wider adoption.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>( Disclaimer : I work for SAP ) The slashdotter above has hit it right on the head .
SAP is a large conservative company and there are varying views on open-source across the organisation .
Many folks in the company love open source and attempt to evangelize it , others ( usually oldies ) treat it with deep suspicion and are ingrained with the 'lets-build-a-new-wheel-again ' attitude .
As far as SAP releasing its own products as open source - this is already true for the R3 platform - though it 's technically 'view-only ' open source ( you are n't allowed to modify and distribute , but you can make changes for yourself if you really wished to ) .
SAP currently has a hard time decision-making on the technology front .
Their primary business products are all built on the ABAP application server/platform but the infrastructure is visibly ageing there .
Still , the ABAP VM still has some goodies which are still not available on modern day JVM 's - isolation and multi-processing , which is becoming more important in today 's parallel world .
There have been some productive attempts to support Ruby as a new language on the ABAP VM , etc The SAP Java platform has had a backlash against it for being poor , buggy and not having the accustomed , almost legendary 7x24x365 reliability of ABAP AS .
As a consequence , internally , there has been a movement 'back-to-ABAP ' for many products .
I do n't particularly care for ABAP , one will admit that it is good at what it does , but with the product acquisitions that we have made ( business objects , etc ) , we have inherited different technologies and we need to learn to make all of them work in harmony Give us a few more years to work things out .
Despite being an MNC , SAP in some ways is still a traditional 'germanic ' company at heart and things move slowly but surely here .
It will some more time for people to realise the benefits of opening up their platform to wider adoption .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(Disclaimer: I work for SAP)
The slashdotter above has hit it right on the head.
SAP is a large conservative company and there are varying views on open-source across the organisation.
Many folks in the company love open source and attempt to evangelize it, others (usually oldies) treat it with deep suspicion and are ingrained with the 'lets-build-a-new-wheel-again' attitude.
As far as SAP releasing its own products as open source - this is already true for the R3 platform - though it's technically 'view-only' open source (you aren't allowed to modify and distribute, but you can make changes for yourself if you really wished to).
SAP currently has a hard time decision-making on the technology front.
Their primary business products are all built on the ABAP application server/platform but the infrastructure is visibly ageing there.
Still, the ABAP VM still has some goodies which are still not available on modern day JVM's - isolation and multi-processing, which is becoming more important in today's parallel world.
There have been some productive attempts to support Ruby as a new language on the ABAP VM, etc
The SAP Java platform has had a backlash against it for being poor, buggy and not having the accustomed, almost legendary 7x24x365 reliability of ABAP AS.
As a consequence, internally, there has been a movement 'back-to-ABAP' for many products.
I don't particularly care for ABAP,  one will admit that it is good at what it does, but with the product acquisitions that we have made (business objects, etc), we have inherited different technologies and we need to learn to make all of them work in harmony
Give us a few more years to work things out.
Despite being an MNC, SAP in some ways  is still a traditional 'germanic' company at heart and things move slowly but surely here.
It will some more time for people to realise the benefits of opening up their platform to wider adoption.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28312417</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28314227</id>
	<title>Re:I love the black and white thinking here....</title>
	<author>jeffasselin</author>
	<datestamp>1244801700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I had exactly the same reaction. As if no one can have mixed feelings about something: "you're either with us or against us!". I refuse to participate in such pointless debates, as it is clear the initiator has no intention of actually discussing the matter rationally, and is most likely either stupid, fanatic, or ignorant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I had exactly the same reaction .
As if no one can have mixed feelings about something : " you 're either with us or against us ! " .
I refuse to participate in such pointless debates , as it is clear the initiator has no intention of actually discussing the matter rationally , and is most likely either stupid , fanatic , or ignorant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had exactly the same reaction.
As if no one can have mixed feelings about something: "you're either with us or against us!".
I refuse to participate in such pointless debates, as it is clear the initiator has no intention of actually discussing the matter rationally, and is most likely either stupid, fanatic, or ignorant.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28311927</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28324755</id>
	<title>Other</title>
	<author>Servo</author>
	<datestamp>1244916180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seems to be an RMS religious rant to me.   SAP is a for profit company.  They write proprietary software.  They have interests to protect.  I can fully understand why they don't want the government coming along and forcing their applications to either become open source or allow open source clones of their proprietary application.    It is also reasonable that SAP likes Linux, open source development tools, and consortium's that produce open source software that extend and interact with their proprietary software.  Presumably this allows them access to additional market share, cheaper development costs, etc.     There is no friend or foe.   Get over it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems to be an RMS religious rant to me .
SAP is a for profit company .
They write proprietary software .
They have interests to protect .
I can fully understand why they do n't want the government coming along and forcing their applications to either become open source or allow open source clones of their proprietary application .
It is also reasonable that SAP likes Linux , open source development tools , and consortium 's that produce open source software that extend and interact with their proprietary software .
Presumably this allows them access to additional market share , cheaper development costs , etc .
There is no friend or foe .
Get over it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems to be an RMS religious rant to me.
SAP is a for profit company.
They write proprietary software.
They have interests to protect.
I can fully understand why they don't want the government coming along and forcing their applications to either become open source or allow open source clones of their proprietary application.
It is also reasonable that SAP likes Linux, open source development tools, and consortium's that produce open source software that extend and interact with their proprietary software.
Presumably this allows them access to additional market share, cheaper development costs, etc.
There is no friend or foe.
Get over it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28312295</id>
	<title>SAP can be friends with both</title>
	<author>juanergie</author>
	<datestamp>1244837400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Every software company benefits from Open Source, whether they'd like to admit it or not. They can peek in the Open Source world and find implementation tricks or functional paradigms and apply them to their products. Maybe even embed some GPL applications into a larger proprietary suite.</p><p>I believe SAP will not give up its competitive advantage by fully embracing Open Source if this translates into reduced profits; it does not make economic sense. However, SAP can be supportive (at least non obtrusive) of Open Source to further leverage whatever advantages it may provide and, secondarily, keep the die-hard computer programmers marginally happy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Every software company benefits from Open Source , whether they 'd like to admit it or not .
They can peek in the Open Source world and find implementation tricks or functional paradigms and apply them to their products .
Maybe even embed some GPL applications into a larger proprietary suite.I believe SAP will not give up its competitive advantage by fully embracing Open Source if this translates into reduced profits ; it does not make economic sense .
However , SAP can be supportive ( at least non obtrusive ) of Open Source to further leverage whatever advantages it may provide and , secondarily , keep the die-hard computer programmers marginally happy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every software company benefits from Open Source, whether they'd like to admit it or not.
They can peek in the Open Source world and find implementation tricks or functional paradigms and apply them to their products.
Maybe even embed some GPL applications into a larger proprietary suite.I believe SAP will not give up its competitive advantage by fully embracing Open Source if this translates into reduced profits; it does not make economic sense.
However, SAP can be supportive (at least non obtrusive) of Open Source to further leverage whatever advantages it may provide and, secondarily, keep the die-hard computer programmers marginally happy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28450703</id>
	<title>have no principles</title>
	<author>Monzo</author>
	<datestamp>1245843720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you want to sell your product and the product is to be used on a computer, don't take a stand.</p><p>Let the client decide how he/she wants to implement your product.</p><p>I'd rather make 11+ billion Euros having not chosen for one (OSS) or the other (proprietary) than make a few euros being an idiot and shutting out part of my market because I don't support their setup.</p><p>Thankfully not everybody cares about this Holy War of Licensing, but just wants to do business.</p><p>The fact that SAP doesn't publicly take a stand on license must creep out the 'FLOSS'-crowd because now for all purposes their opinion is ignored, they have no say and their ego can't handle that.</p><p>I prefer open source, but the client is always right...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you want to sell your product and the product is to be used on a computer , do n't take a stand.Let the client decide how he/she wants to implement your product.I 'd rather make 11 + billion Euros having not chosen for one ( OSS ) or the other ( proprietary ) than make a few euros being an idiot and shutting out part of my market because I do n't support their setup.Thankfully not everybody cares about this Holy War of Licensing , but just wants to do business.The fact that SAP does n't publicly take a stand on license must creep out the 'FLOSS'-crowd because now for all purposes their opinion is ignored , they have no say and their ego ca n't handle that.I prefer open source , but the client is always right.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you want to sell your product and the product is to be used on a computer, don't take a stand.Let the client decide how he/she wants to implement your product.I'd rather make 11+ billion Euros having not chosen for one (OSS) or the other (proprietary) than make a few euros being an idiot and shutting out part of my market because I don't support their setup.Thankfully not everybody cares about this Holy War of Licensing, but just wants to do business.The fact that SAP doesn't publicly take a stand on license must creep out the 'FLOSS'-crowd because now for all purposes their opinion is ignored, they have no say and their ego can't handle that.I prefer open source, but the client is always right...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28312271</id>
	<title>Quoth SAP</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244837340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course open source is our friend. We love OSS and all the money that it can save us. We support and even run lots of Lunix servers ourselves.</p><p>What? Open source our code? No! That would be stupid. We'll never do that. That would make OSS our foe and we want to remain friends with OSS.</p><p>Group hug<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course open source is our friend .
We love OSS and all the money that it can save us .
We support and even run lots of Lunix servers ourselves.What ?
Open source our code ?
No ! That would be stupid .
We 'll never do that .
That would make OSS our foe and we want to remain friends with OSS.Group hug : D</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course open source is our friend.
We love OSS and all the money that it can save us.
We support and even run lots of Lunix servers ourselves.What?
Open source our code?
No! That would be stupid.
We'll never do that.
That would make OSS our foe and we want to remain friends with OSS.Group hug :D</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28313905</id>
	<title>case by case</title>
	<author>binaryseraph</author>
	<datestamp>1244800020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can't speak about SAP and what they do or do not support. But here is my guess...

Open source has its place and time- not every project should be OS, however, for those of us who love programing on our free time, or have ideas about making sotware that would be far more enhanced by contributions by the public, it is great. That's not to say their isnt a money making business solution for OS products as well (various linux flavors for example). From a software corp. standpoint, just giving a 'well wish' might be the proper grounds to play. Sometimes being a little vague or contradictory on your standing is the best choice in the long term (politicians do great at this).

In short, I have no doubt these guys are looking at a lot of open source, and maybe waiting to watch the industry evolve and see what other software giants do (aside from trying to squeltch it) But mum is the word.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't speak about SAP and what they do or do not support .
But here is my guess.. . Open source has its place and time- not every project should be OS , however , for those of us who love programing on our free time , or have ideas about making sotware that would be far more enhanced by contributions by the public , it is great .
That 's not to say their isnt a money making business solution for OS products as well ( various linux flavors for example ) .
From a software corp. standpoint , just giving a 'well wish ' might be the proper grounds to play .
Sometimes being a little vague or contradictory on your standing is the best choice in the long term ( politicians do great at this ) .
In short , I have no doubt these guys are looking at a lot of open source , and maybe waiting to watch the industry evolve and see what other software giants do ( aside from trying to squeltch it ) But mum is the word .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't speak about SAP and what they do or do not support.
But here is my guess...

Open source has its place and time- not every project should be OS, however, for those of us who love programing on our free time, or have ideas about making sotware that would be far more enhanced by contributions by the public, it is great.
That's not to say their isnt a money making business solution for OS products as well (various linux flavors for example).
From a software corp. standpoint, just giving a 'well wish' might be the proper grounds to play.
Sometimes being a little vague or contradictory on your standing is the best choice in the long term (politicians do great at this).
In short, I have no doubt these guys are looking at a lot of open source, and maybe waiting to watch the industry evolve and see what other software giants do (aside from trying to squeltch it) But mum is the word.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28313105</id>
	<title>Re:Answer: Publicly Traded Company</title>
	<author>Tanktalus</author>
	<datestamp>1244840220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Redhat.  Novell.  IBM.  Sun, Oracle.  Microsoft.  SCO.</p><p>I'm not sure that "publicly traded" is definitive on either side of the issue.  Probably more to do with whether the business has the smarts to figure out how to make OSS work for them rather than against them.  With SAP so tied to HP, I'm not sure they care.  If their customers started demanding Linux versions such that Linux was their most profitable platform, I'm sure we'd hear different.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Redhat .
Novell. IBM .
Sun , Oracle .
Microsoft. SCO.I 'm not sure that " publicly traded " is definitive on either side of the issue .
Probably more to do with whether the business has the smarts to figure out how to make OSS work for them rather than against them .
With SAP so tied to HP , I 'm not sure they care .
If their customers started demanding Linux versions such that Linux was their most profitable platform , I 'm sure we 'd hear different .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Redhat.
Novell.  IBM.
Sun, Oracle.
Microsoft.  SCO.I'm not sure that "publicly traded" is definitive on either side of the issue.
Probably more to do with whether the business has the smarts to figure out how to make OSS work for them rather than against them.
With SAP so tied to HP, I'm not sure they care.
If their customers started demanding Linux versions such that Linux was their most profitable platform, I'm sure we'd hear different.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28311921</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28312959</id>
	<title>It's *SAP*</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1244839620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree the question is stupid, but for a different reason.  We're talking about <b>SAP</b>.  Whether you are in the FOSS or Closed Source camp doesn't matter. If you are on the side of <b>sanity</b>, then SAP is your foe.  It's that simple.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree the question is stupid , but for a different reason .
We 're talking about SAP .
Whether you are in the FOSS or Closed Source camp does n't matter .
If you are on the side of sanity , then SAP is your foe .
It 's that simple .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree the question is stupid, but for a different reason.
We're talking about SAP.
Whether you are in the FOSS or Closed Source camp doesn't matter.
If you are on the side of sanity, then SAP is your foe.
It's that simple.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28311927</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28312009</id>
	<title>Friend or FOE</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244836380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>So SAP is either with the Open Source movement or against it?  Reminds me of Bush.

You know, we would do much better if we realized there ARE shades of grey between black and white.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So SAP is either with the Open Source movement or against it ?
Reminds me of Bush .
You know , we would do much better if we realized there ARE shades of grey between black and white .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So SAP is either with the Open Source movement or against it?
Reminds me of Bush.
You know, we would do much better if we realized there ARE shades of grey between black and white.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28311983</id>
	<title>FOSS Zealotry at its finest</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244836320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If Open Source is a Movement, you should see a proctologist.  SAP doesn't need to be a friend nor a foe to it.  They can and should be indifferent, as should 99.9999999999\% of the world.</p><p>The ideology is simply unimportant in the grand scheme of things.  Only zealots feel a need to paint everyone in black and white.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Open Source is a Movement , you should see a proctologist .
SAP does n't need to be a friend nor a foe to it .
They can and should be indifferent , as should 99.9999999999 \ % of the world.The ideology is simply unimportant in the grand scheme of things .
Only zealots feel a need to paint everyone in black and white .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Open Source is a Movement, you should see a proctologist.
SAP doesn't need to be a friend nor a foe to it.
They can and should be indifferent, as should 99.9999999999\% of the world.The ideology is simply unimportant in the grand scheme of things.
Only zealots feel a need to paint everyone in black and white.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28313125</id>
	<title>Google FOSS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244840280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Tell Google to open their web search engine source code.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tell Google to open their web search engine source code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tell Google to open their web search engine source code.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28313483</id>
	<title>Open source == corporations cooperating</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244798400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Open source projects aren't sponsored because corporations want to support hobbyists or have any altruistic notions about supporting "software freedom".  Corporations support open source out of self-interest.  Even Sun, up until now what I believe to be the most vocal proponent of open source is only doing so because it suits their business model of bottom-up adoption of their products by developers.   None of them contribute to open source so that people like us geeks can get stuff for free out of the kindness of their hearts.</p><p>Some companies like Sun are pretty extreme and straightforward about it.  At the other extreme are companies that are traditionally downright hostile to open source, like Microsoft.   In the mushy middle are companies that some would describe as hypocritical, like IBM and Red Hat, who contribute to the community strategically, but also take and refuse to give.   It's in their strategic best interests to build a business model that gives just enough to open source but also withholds enough and take enough to ensure they make a profit.  Hand-in-hand with this strategy is the use of patents to prevent open source forks from going too far, which even Sun is guilty of with the IP they have behind Java.</p><p>When anybody refers to the open source "community", much of that community is corporations (ex members of the Eclipse Foundation) and individual developers who work for those corporations.  It's not a bunch of geeks coding in their basements.</p><p>So when SAP is described as perhaps a friend or foe of open source, it means the company is large and complex enough that elements of it view open source as a means of benefiting from inter-corporation cooperation, and others view it as unfair competition for their proprietary products.   It also means that they don't have the strategic clarity with regard to open source that Sun, IBM and Red Hat have.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Open source projects are n't sponsored because corporations want to support hobbyists or have any altruistic notions about supporting " software freedom " .
Corporations support open source out of self-interest .
Even Sun , up until now what I believe to be the most vocal proponent of open source is only doing so because it suits their business model of bottom-up adoption of their products by developers .
None of them contribute to open source so that people like us geeks can get stuff for free out of the kindness of their hearts.Some companies like Sun are pretty extreme and straightforward about it .
At the other extreme are companies that are traditionally downright hostile to open source , like Microsoft .
In the mushy middle are companies that some would describe as hypocritical , like IBM and Red Hat , who contribute to the community strategically , but also take and refuse to give .
It 's in their strategic best interests to build a business model that gives just enough to open source but also withholds enough and take enough to ensure they make a profit .
Hand-in-hand with this strategy is the use of patents to prevent open source forks from going too far , which even Sun is guilty of with the IP they have behind Java.When anybody refers to the open source " community " , much of that community is corporations ( ex members of the Eclipse Foundation ) and individual developers who work for those corporations .
It 's not a bunch of geeks coding in their basements.So when SAP is described as perhaps a friend or foe of open source , it means the company is large and complex enough that elements of it view open source as a means of benefiting from inter-corporation cooperation , and others view it as unfair competition for their proprietary products .
It also means that they do n't have the strategic clarity with regard to open source that Sun , IBM and Red Hat have .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Open source projects aren't sponsored because corporations want to support hobbyists or have any altruistic notions about supporting "software freedom".
Corporations support open source out of self-interest.
Even Sun, up until now what I believe to be the most vocal proponent of open source is only doing so because it suits their business model of bottom-up adoption of their products by developers.
None of them contribute to open source so that people like us geeks can get stuff for free out of the kindness of their hearts.Some companies like Sun are pretty extreme and straightforward about it.
At the other extreme are companies that are traditionally downright hostile to open source, like Microsoft.
In the mushy middle are companies that some would describe as hypocritical, like IBM and Red Hat, who contribute to the community strategically, but also take and refuse to give.
It's in their strategic best interests to build a business model that gives just enough to open source but also withholds enough and take enough to ensure they make a profit.
Hand-in-hand with this strategy is the use of patents to prevent open source forks from going too far, which even Sun is guilty of with the IP they have behind Java.When anybody refers to the open source "community", much of that community is corporations (ex members of the Eclipse Foundation) and individual developers who work for those corporations.
It's not a bunch of geeks coding in their basements.So when SAP is described as perhaps a friend or foe of open source, it means the company is large and complex enough that elements of it view open source as a means of benefiting from inter-corporation cooperation, and others view it as unfair competition for their proprietary products.
It also means that they don't have the strategic clarity with regard to open source that Sun, IBM and Red Hat have.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28316983</id>
	<title>Re:SAP is open source</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244822580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That is NOT open source.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is NOT open source .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is NOT open source.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28312353</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28313361</id>
	<title>Re:I love not R'ing TFA...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244797920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>By "this" of course you mean the summary, because you (along with all the other posts I see on the same subject) obviously haven't RTFA.</p><p>The main thrust of the article is not that SAP is not "doing enough for open source", but rather that while trying to derive positive PR from their contributions to Open Source SAP is at the same time working AGAINST Open source's interests by arguing against mandating use of Open Source in government procuring and for strengthening software patentability.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>By " this " of course you mean the summary , because you ( along with all the other posts I see on the same subject ) obviously have n't RTFA.The main thrust of the article is not that SAP is not " doing enough for open source " , but rather that while trying to derive positive PR from their contributions to Open Source SAP is at the same time working AGAINST Open source 's interests by arguing against mandating use of Open Source in government procuring and for strengthening software patentability .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By "this" of course you mean the summary, because you (along with all the other posts I see on the same subject) obviously haven't RTFA.The main thrust of the article is not that SAP is not "doing enough for open source", but rather that while trying to derive positive PR from their contributions to Open Source SAP is at the same time working AGAINST Open source's interests by arguing against mandating use of Open Source in government procuring and for strengthening software patentability.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28311927</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28318735</id>
	<title>Well duh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244893860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>an outfit that calls itself "the world's largest business software company," the German software giant SAP is relatively little-known in the open source world.</p></div> </blockquote><p>Why would it be known in the open source world?  Smelly hackers who live in basements have no connection with business; most of them have never even had a job.  Plus things like accounting are boring.  PHBs and MBAs do them.  Much more fun to write your own web server, or invent your own programming language.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>an outfit that calls itself " the world 's largest business software company , " the German software giant SAP is relatively little-known in the open source world .
Why would it be known in the open source world ?
Smelly hackers who live in basements have no connection with business ; most of them have never even had a job .
Plus things like accounting are boring .
PHBs and MBAs do them .
Much more fun to write your own web server , or invent your own programming language .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>an outfit that calls itself "the world's largest business software company," the German software giant SAP is relatively little-known in the open source world.
Why would it be known in the open source world?
Smelly hackers who live in basements have no connection with business; most of them have never even had a job.
Plus things like accounting are boring.
PHBs and MBAs do them.
Much more fun to write your own web server, or invent your own programming language.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28311927</id>
	<title>I love the black and white thinking here....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244836140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You must be a friend or foe, you can't be neutral on the subject.  I prefer to use Linux without the dogma attached it it.</p><p>It's non-starter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You must be a friend or foe , you ca n't be neutral on the subject .
I prefer to use Linux without the dogma attached it it.It 's non-starter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You must be a friend or foe, you can't be neutral on the subject.
I prefer to use Linux without the dogma attached it it.It's non-starter.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28312411</id>
	<title>Re:I love the black and white thinking here....</title>
	<author>Sasayaki</author>
	<datestamp>1244837820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, the "With us or against us" binary logic that served Bush throughout his presidency didn't end up doing him much good at the end. Hopefully this kind of rot will go the same way- useful as a simplification early on, but ultimately revealed as flawed and unproductive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , the " With us or against us " binary logic that served Bush throughout his presidency did n't end up doing him much good at the end .
Hopefully this kind of rot will go the same way- useful as a simplification early on , but ultimately revealed as flawed and unproductive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, the "With us or against us" binary logic that served Bush throughout his presidency didn't end up doing him much good at the end.
Hopefully this kind of rot will go the same way- useful as a simplification early on, but ultimately revealed as flawed and unproductive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28311927</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28312293</id>
	<title>As an employee...</title>
	<author>VorpalRodent</author>
	<datestamp>1244837400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't have a lot of exposure to the sales side of things.  I'm an engineer and will work on support calls as needed.  However, I can say that internally, I have not witnessed any sort of stigma against it.  We've recommended open source solutions for customers as workarounds for issues and have used open source tools internally where appropriate.  Everything I've seen suggests that it is viewed like anything else - a potential tool that our customers may or may not benefit from, if used correctly.  We build many products on many variants of Linux (which can be viewed as supporting those customers who support and use open source software).<br> <br>
I admit that it sounds mighty idealistic, but at the same time, like many of the earlier posters, I wholly agree that it is quite possible to take a more neutral stance on the issue.  It's not limited to only friends and enemies.<br> <br>
At the same time, I've been involved with discussions with legal ensuring that GPL'd code is not present in software products I am responsible for as a matter of protection of corporate interests.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't have a lot of exposure to the sales side of things .
I 'm an engineer and will work on support calls as needed .
However , I can say that internally , I have not witnessed any sort of stigma against it .
We 've recommended open source solutions for customers as workarounds for issues and have used open source tools internally where appropriate .
Everything I 've seen suggests that it is viewed like anything else - a potential tool that our customers may or may not benefit from , if used correctly .
We build many products on many variants of Linux ( which can be viewed as supporting those customers who support and use open source software ) .
I admit that it sounds mighty idealistic , but at the same time , like many of the earlier posters , I wholly agree that it is quite possible to take a more neutral stance on the issue .
It 's not limited to only friends and enemies .
At the same time , I 've been involved with discussions with legal ensuring that GPL 'd code is not present in software products I am responsible for as a matter of protection of corporate interests .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't have a lot of exposure to the sales side of things.
I'm an engineer and will work on support calls as needed.
However, I can say that internally, I have not witnessed any sort of stigma against it.
We've recommended open source solutions for customers as workarounds for issues and have used open source tools internally where appropriate.
Everything I've seen suggests that it is viewed like anything else - a potential tool that our customers may or may not benefit from, if used correctly.
We build many products on many variants of Linux (which can be viewed as supporting those customers who support and use open source software).
I admit that it sounds mighty idealistic, but at the same time, like many of the earlier posters, I wholly agree that it is quite possible to take a more neutral stance on the issue.
It's not limited to only friends and enemies.
At the same time, I've been involved with discussions with legal ensuring that GPL'd code is not present in software products I am responsible for as a matter of protection of corporate interests.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28312193</id>
	<title>FOSS is a movement alright</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244836980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>.. a bowel movement of a constipated chiptard</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>.. a bowel movement of a constipated chiptard</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.. a bowel movement of a constipated chiptard</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28311927</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28322517</id>
	<title>Sick of the paranoia</title>
	<author>petrus4</author>
	<datestamp>1244888640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm getting very tired of hearing the usual cry of, "If you're not with us, you're against us!" where FOSS is concerned, coming from the usual suspects.  I think a certain quote about only a Sith dealing in absolutes, is appropriate here.</p><p>The paranoia possibly wouldn't bother me so much if it wasn't so completely baseless.  People still using proprietary stuff from Microsoft or whoever hasn't killed open source up to this point, and it isn't going to kill it in the future.</p><p>There are a lot of genuinely terrible things being done by corporations at the present time; I would agree with anyone who suggests that.  However, the death of Free Software is not, nor is it going to be, one of them.</p><p>People keep seeing an endless array of supposedly lethal threats; binary device drivers, DRM, even apparently the use of non-GPL FOSS licenses.  Yet all of these things exist, and continue to exist, and FOSS itself co-exists with them just fine.</p><p>So for those of you who continue to insist on being hysterically terrified of how the evil corporations are going to kill FOSS entirely, please, I'm begging you, get over yourselves.</p><p>Also, stop listening to Stallman.  He is wrong, he has been wrong, and he continues to be wrong, over and over and over again; and I know that he is the main source, ultimately, of most of your fear and paranoia.  I've gone over the countless ways in which he is catastrophically misguided many times before, but if you feel like replying and asking for citations, I'm more than happy to do it again, in the hope of potentially educating someone.</p><p>Try it; purely as an experiment.  For a single month, stop listening to the FSF's (and its' fanboys) paranoid ranting and foaming at the mouth about the corporate wolves at the gate, and see if, at the end of said month, FOSS as a whole is still here.  I suspect the outcome will cause you to be very surprised; although it won't surprise me much at all.</p><p>Myopic, paranoid, condescending, dismissive, ad hominem laced, pro-FSF reply incoming, I'm sure.  Also, once again, for those of you with mod points who don't have the brains or capacity for independent thought to refute me logically, please feel free to down-mod this post into oblivion; my karma on this site is sufficiently good that it can withstand a significant amount of your cowardice.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm getting very tired of hearing the usual cry of , " If you 're not with us , you 're against us !
" where FOSS is concerned , coming from the usual suspects .
I think a certain quote about only a Sith dealing in absolutes , is appropriate here.The paranoia possibly would n't bother me so much if it was n't so completely baseless .
People still using proprietary stuff from Microsoft or whoever has n't killed open source up to this point , and it is n't going to kill it in the future.There are a lot of genuinely terrible things being done by corporations at the present time ; I would agree with anyone who suggests that .
However , the death of Free Software is not , nor is it going to be , one of them.People keep seeing an endless array of supposedly lethal threats ; binary device drivers , DRM , even apparently the use of non-GPL FOSS licenses .
Yet all of these things exist , and continue to exist , and FOSS itself co-exists with them just fine.So for those of you who continue to insist on being hysterically terrified of how the evil corporations are going to kill FOSS entirely , please , I 'm begging you , get over yourselves.Also , stop listening to Stallman .
He is wrong , he has been wrong , and he continues to be wrong , over and over and over again ; and I know that he is the main source , ultimately , of most of your fear and paranoia .
I 've gone over the countless ways in which he is catastrophically misguided many times before , but if you feel like replying and asking for citations , I 'm more than happy to do it again , in the hope of potentially educating someone.Try it ; purely as an experiment .
For a single month , stop listening to the FSF 's ( and its ' fanboys ) paranoid ranting and foaming at the mouth about the corporate wolves at the gate , and see if , at the end of said month , FOSS as a whole is still here .
I suspect the outcome will cause you to be very surprised ; although it wo n't surprise me much at all.Myopic , paranoid , condescending , dismissive , ad hominem laced , pro-FSF reply incoming , I 'm sure .
Also , once again , for those of you with mod points who do n't have the brains or capacity for independent thought to refute me logically , please feel free to down-mod this post into oblivion ; my karma on this site is sufficiently good that it can withstand a significant amount of your cowardice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm getting very tired of hearing the usual cry of, "If you're not with us, you're against us!
" where FOSS is concerned, coming from the usual suspects.
I think a certain quote about only a Sith dealing in absolutes, is appropriate here.The paranoia possibly wouldn't bother me so much if it wasn't so completely baseless.
People still using proprietary stuff from Microsoft or whoever hasn't killed open source up to this point, and it isn't going to kill it in the future.There are a lot of genuinely terrible things being done by corporations at the present time; I would agree with anyone who suggests that.
However, the death of Free Software is not, nor is it going to be, one of them.People keep seeing an endless array of supposedly lethal threats; binary device drivers, DRM, even apparently the use of non-GPL FOSS licenses.
Yet all of these things exist, and continue to exist, and FOSS itself co-exists with them just fine.So for those of you who continue to insist on being hysterically terrified of how the evil corporations are going to kill FOSS entirely, please, I'm begging you, get over yourselves.Also, stop listening to Stallman.
He is wrong, he has been wrong, and he continues to be wrong, over and over and over again; and I know that he is the main source, ultimately, of most of your fear and paranoia.
I've gone over the countless ways in which he is catastrophically misguided many times before, but if you feel like replying and asking for citations, I'm more than happy to do it again, in the hope of potentially educating someone.Try it; purely as an experiment.
For a single month, stop listening to the FSF's (and its' fanboys) paranoid ranting and foaming at the mouth about the corporate wolves at the gate, and see if, at the end of said month, FOSS as a whole is still here.
I suspect the outcome will cause you to be very surprised; although it won't surprise me much at all.Myopic, paranoid, condescending, dismissive, ad hominem laced, pro-FSF reply incoming, I'm sure.
Also, once again, for those of you with mod points who don't have the brains or capacity for independent thought to refute me logically, please feel free to down-mod this post into oblivion; my karma on this site is sufficiently good that it can withstand a significant amount of your cowardice.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28311897</id>
	<title>SAP just knows that Linux and FOSS suck</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244835960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Linux just isn't ready for the desktop yet. It may be ready for the web servers that you nerds use to distribute your TRON fanzines and personal Dungeons and Dragons web-sights across the world wide web, but the average computer user isn't going to spend months learning how to use a CLI and then hours compiling packages so that they can get a workable graphic interface to check their mail with, especially not when they already have a Windows machine that does its job perfectly well and is backed by a major corporation, as opposed to Linux which is only supported by a few unemployed nerds living in their mother's basement somewhere. The last thing I want is a level 5 dwarf (haha) providing me my OS.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Linux just is n't ready for the desktop yet .
It may be ready for the web servers that you nerds use to distribute your TRON fanzines and personal Dungeons and Dragons web-sights across the world wide web , but the average computer user is n't going to spend months learning how to use a CLI and then hours compiling packages so that they can get a workable graphic interface to check their mail with , especially not when they already have a Windows machine that does its job perfectly well and is backed by a major corporation , as opposed to Linux which is only supported by a few unemployed nerds living in their mother 's basement somewhere .
The last thing I want is a level 5 dwarf ( haha ) providing me my OS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Linux just isn't ready for the desktop yet.
It may be ready for the web servers that you nerds use to distribute your TRON fanzines and personal Dungeons and Dragons web-sights across the world wide web, but the average computer user isn't going to spend months learning how to use a CLI and then hours compiling packages so that they can get a workable graphic interface to check their mail with, especially not when they already have a Windows machine that does its job perfectly well and is backed by a major corporation, as opposed to Linux which is only supported by a few unemployed nerds living in their mother's basement somewhere.
The last thing I want is a level 5 dwarf (haha) providing me my OS.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28312341</id>
	<title>OpenERP</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244837580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nice true open source alternative to SAP:<br>http://openerp.com/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nice true open source alternative to SAP : http : //openerp.com/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nice true open source alternative to SAP:http://openerp.com/</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28323837</id>
	<title>Simple answer: is SAP open source?</title>
	<author>hackel</author>
	<datestamp>1244902260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There should be no debate on this issue.  Is SAP releasing its software under a Free and open source license?  If not, then it is NOT a friend of open source.  It really could not get any simpler than that.  Companies which produce proprietary software do not understand or agree with OSS philosophies and are certainly not friends...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There should be no debate on this issue .
Is SAP releasing its software under a Free and open source license ?
If not , then it is NOT a friend of open source .
It really could not get any simpler than that .
Companies which produce proprietary software do not understand or agree with OSS philosophies and are certainly not friends.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There should be no debate on this issue.
Is SAP releasing its software under a Free and open source license?
If not, then it is NOT a friend of open source.
It really could not get any simpler than that.
Companies which produce proprietary software do not understand or agree with OSS philosophies and are certainly not friends...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28312639</id>
	<title>What the hell?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244838540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>SAP is in the business of making money, not supporting or not supporting free software.  I imagine they support some efforts when it suits their interests (like Eclipse), and oppose others, when it doesn't ("all software should be free".)  Of <i>course</i> their participation in open-source is self-interested; they are a business, not a charity.  I doubt SAP gives one flying *bleep* about being a "serious, respected player in the world of open source."</p><p>SirWired</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>SAP is in the business of making money , not supporting or not supporting free software .
I imagine they support some efforts when it suits their interests ( like Eclipse ) , and oppose others , when it does n't ( " all software should be free " .
) Of course their participation in open-source is self-interested ; they are a business , not a charity .
I doubt SAP gives one flying * bleep * about being a " serious , respected player in the world of open source .
" SirWired</tokentext>
<sentencetext>SAP is in the business of making money, not supporting or not supporting free software.
I imagine they support some efforts when it suits their interests (like Eclipse), and oppose others, when it doesn't ("all software should be free".
)  Of course their participation in open-source is self-interested; they are a business, not a charity.
I doubt SAP gives one flying *bleep* about being a "serious, respected player in the world of open source.
"SirWired</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28315501</id>
	<title>Re:It's pretty simple</title>
	<author>j.leidner</author>
	<datestamp>1244809320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Please avoid ad-hominem attacks, that's not fair regardless of your opinion.
<p>

When you buy SAP, you actually get the full ABAP source code of all the business logic, which is more openness than can be said for most businesses. Having said this it's not the same as open sourcing the software, as you need a commercial license to legally execute it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please avoid ad-hominem attacks , that 's not fair regardless of your opinion .
When you buy SAP , you actually get the full ABAP source code of all the business logic , which is more openness than can be said for most businesses .
Having said this it 's not the same as open sourcing the software , as you need a commercial license to legally execute it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please avoid ad-hominem attacks, that's not fair regardless of your opinion.
When you buy SAP, you actually get the full ABAP source code of all the business logic, which is more openness than can be said for most businesses.
Having said this it's not the same as open sourcing the software, as you need a commercial license to legally execute it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28312011</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28312007</id>
	<title>OSS is not a religion to everyone</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244836380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To some people FOSS is just software to get work done. So they use it where they see fit. They contribute where they see benefit. But they don't sacrafice themselve to the holy crusade of FOSS.</p><p>Actually I would say this is how FOSS should work. If FOSS would have to rely on the altruism of companies it would be doomed. I don't think it is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To some people FOSS is just software to get work done .
So they use it where they see fit .
They contribute where they see benefit .
But they do n't sacrafice themselve to the holy crusade of FOSS.Actually I would say this is how FOSS should work .
If FOSS would have to rely on the altruism of companies it would be doomed .
I do n't think it is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To some people FOSS is just software to get work done.
So they use it where they see fit.
They contribute where they see benefit.
But they don't sacrafice themselve to the holy crusade of FOSS.Actually I would say this is how FOSS should work.
If FOSS would have to rely on the altruism of companies it would be doomed.
I don't think it is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28312353</id>
	<title>SAP is open source</title>
	<author>ingo23</author>
	<datestamp>1244837640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Technically speaking, SAP is probably one of the first companies to distribute the source code with their product. Any company that purchased an SAP product gets complete source code for the business application (except for the core, which is more like an OS).
One does not even need to apply for access to it, the whole application part is developed in an interpreted language with the source, IDE, and debugger readily available.
<p>
The article complains that SAP does not support all the OSS community initiatives (as if nobody in OSS world ever has had any disagreement) and backs software patents. <br>
As a software development company, SAP has no other choice than to hold on to their patent portfolio, even if for defense reasons. I am not saying that SAP will (or have) never sue anyone for patent infringement, but I have not heard of any widely publicized case of them doing so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Technically speaking , SAP is probably one of the first companies to distribute the source code with their product .
Any company that purchased an SAP product gets complete source code for the business application ( except for the core , which is more like an OS ) .
One does not even need to apply for access to it , the whole application part is developed in an interpreted language with the source , IDE , and debugger readily available .
The article complains that SAP does not support all the OSS community initiatives ( as if nobody in OSS world ever has had any disagreement ) and backs software patents .
As a software development company , SAP has no other choice than to hold on to their patent portfolio , even if for defense reasons .
I am not saying that SAP will ( or have ) never sue anyone for patent infringement , but I have not heard of any widely publicized case of them doing so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Technically speaking, SAP is probably one of the first companies to distribute the source code with their product.
Any company that purchased an SAP product gets complete source code for the business application (except for the core, which is more like an OS).
One does not even need to apply for access to it, the whole application part is developed in an interpreted language with the source, IDE, and debugger readily available.
The article complains that SAP does not support all the OSS community initiatives (as if nobody in OSS world ever has had any disagreement) and backs software patents.
As a software development company, SAP has no other choice than to hold on to their patent portfolio, even if for defense reasons.
I am not saying that SAP will (or have) never sue anyone for patent infringement, but I have not heard of any widely publicized case of them doing so.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28312517</id>
	<title>Re:I love the black and white thinking here....</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1244838120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Besides, it's obvious that SAP's real enemy is its users.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Besides , it 's obvious that SAP 's real enemy is its users .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Besides, it's obvious that SAP's real enemy is its users.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28311927</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1735241_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28314227
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28311927
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1735241_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28312517
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28311927
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1735241_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28317349
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28312241
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28311921
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1735241_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28313361
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28311927
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1735241_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28316983
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28312353
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1735241_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28315501
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28312011
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1735241_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28315673
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28312417
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1735241_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28319065
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28312417
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1735241_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28316257
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28313319
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28312241
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28311921
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1735241_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28312199
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28311927
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1735241_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28313005
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28311983
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1735241_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28318807
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28312011
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1735241_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28318559
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28316423
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1735241_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28319217
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28312241
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28311921
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1735241_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28312193
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28311927
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1735241_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28312959
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28311927
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1735241_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28313555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28312353
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1735241_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28313105
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28311921
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1735241_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28313791
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28312241
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28311921
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1735241_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28312587
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28312011
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1735241_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28315683
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28313319
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28312241
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28311921
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1735241_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28312735
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28312293
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1735241_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28316591
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28313319
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28312241
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28311921
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1735241_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28318219
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28312011
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1735241_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28312411
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28311927
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1735241_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28313489
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28311983
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1735241_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28318309
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28312353
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1735241_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28312865
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28311927
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1735241_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28314851
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28312161
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1735241.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28312639
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1735241.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28312009
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1735241.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28312341
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1735241.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28312011
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28318807
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28318219
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28315501
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28312587
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1735241.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28312513
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1735241.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28311983
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28313489
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28313005
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1735241.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28312161
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28314851
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1735241.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28311921
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28312241
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28319217
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28313319
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28316257
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28316591
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28315683
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28313791
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28317349
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28313105
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1735241.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28312295
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1735241.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28316423
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28318559
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1735241.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28312293
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28312735
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1735241.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28312007
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1735241.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28311927
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28312865
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28312193
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28312199
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28312517
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28313361
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28314227
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28312411
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28312959
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1735241.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28312335
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1735241.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28322517
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1735241.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28313213
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1735241.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28313775
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1735241.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28312417
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28315673
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28319065
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1735241.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28312353
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28318309
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28313555
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1735241.28316983
</commentlist>
</conversation>
