<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_24_1449254</id>
	<title>Atari Sub-Sub-Contractor Used ScummVM For Wii Game</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1245858300000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.foobarsoft.com/" rel="nofollow">MBCook</a> writes <i>"In several <a href="http://www.gamespot.com/news/6188321.html">recent releases</a>, it seems that <a href="http://sev-notes.blogspot.com/2009/06/gpl-scummvm-and-violations.html">Atari published games for the Wii based on ScummVM</a>, which was released under the GPL. Atari contracted Majesco, who contracted a company named Mistic Software with offices in the Ukraine. When the fact that the GPL was being violated was brought to Atari's attention, they were kind at first until it was discovered that Nintendo doesn't allow open source software to be used with the Wii SDK, so updated documentation mentioning the GPL wasn't an available solution. So, what happens to the games? 'There is a period of time in which all current copies have to be sold. Any copies beyond this period or any reprints get fined with quite high fine for each new/remaining copy. The remaining stock has to be destoryed [sic].' Atari and Majesco seem to have been very cooperative about this whole thing, but had their hands tied by the agreement with Nintendo."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>MBCook writes " In several recent releases , it seems that Atari published games for the Wii based on ScummVM , which was released under the GPL .
Atari contracted Majesco , who contracted a company named Mistic Software with offices in the Ukraine .
When the fact that the GPL was being violated was brought to Atari 's attention , they were kind at first until it was discovered that Nintendo does n't allow open source software to be used with the Wii SDK , so updated documentation mentioning the GPL was n't an available solution .
So , what happens to the games ?
'There is a period of time in which all current copies have to be sold .
Any copies beyond this period or any reprints get fined with quite high fine for each new/remaining copy .
The remaining stock has to be destoryed [ sic ] .
' Atari and Majesco seem to have been very cooperative about this whole thing , but had their hands tied by the agreement with Nintendo .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MBCook writes "In several recent releases, it seems that Atari published games for the Wii based on ScummVM, which was released under the GPL.
Atari contracted Majesco, who contracted a company named Mistic Software with offices in the Ukraine.
When the fact that the GPL was being violated was brought to Atari's attention, they were kind at first until it was discovered that Nintendo doesn't allow open source software to be used with the Wii SDK, so updated documentation mentioning the GPL wasn't an available solution.
So, what happens to the games?
'There is a period of time in which all current copies have to be sold.
Any copies beyond this period or any reprints get fined with quite high fine for each new/remaining copy.
The remaining stock has to be destoryed [sic].
' Atari and Majesco seem to have been very cooperative about this whole thing, but had their hands tied by the agreement with Nintendo.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28454653</id>
	<title>Why do companies have to be careful?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245866520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>According to Slashdot, copyright is evil and EULAs shouldn't be enforced.  The GPL is a copyright license and a EULA.  You guys can't post constant pro-piracy, anti-copyright articles and then turn around and start preaching about GPL code theft.  Do you realize how stupid it makes you look?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>According to Slashdot , copyright is evil and EULAs should n't be enforced .
The GPL is a copyright license and a EULA .
You guys ca n't post constant pro-piracy , anti-copyright articles and then turn around and start preaching about GPL code theft .
Do you realize how stupid it makes you look ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to Slashdot, copyright is evil and EULAs shouldn't be enforced.
The GPL is a copyright license and a EULA.
You guys can't post constant pro-piracy, anti-copyright articles and then turn around and start preaching about GPL code theft.
Do you realize how stupid it makes you look?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453409</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453981</id>
	<title>Re:It's only copyright</title>
	<author>geekboy642</author>
	<datestamp>1245864240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you claiming to be too dumb to know the difference between the illicit uploading of 24 songs without thought of profit, and the use of Eugene Sandulenko's work illegally solely for profit?</p><p>I ask only for clarification, i.e., are you stupid or willfully ignorant?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you claiming to be too dumb to know the difference between the illicit uploading of 24 songs without thought of profit , and the use of Eugene Sandulenko 's work illegally solely for profit ? I ask only for clarification , i.e. , are you stupid or willfully ignorant ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you claiming to be too dumb to know the difference between the illicit uploading of 24 songs without thought of profit, and the use of Eugene Sandulenko's work illegally solely for profit?I ask only for clarification, i.e., are you stupid or willfully ignorant?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453411</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28456061</id>
	<title>Re:It's only copyright</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245871140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is there a difference between selling pirated CDs and having some MP3s sitting in the upload folder of P2P software?  If not, is there a difference between potentially uploading mp3s and publicly performing a copyrighted song by singing or humming it in a crowd?  Is there a difference between singing a song which is on a CD you own versus singing a song which you only heard for free on the radio, or perhaps even heard via public performance infringement from someone's cell phone ring tone?  I think it's obvious that personal use is almost always fair use, versus infringement for profit.  File sharing is much closer in actual harm and intent to playing a stereo in a public place, or even a library.  The only difference is that libraries are so inefficient right now that people don't automatically see the similarity.  If you could check a CD out from a library, play the song you wanted, and return it in no more time than it took to play the song, it would be indistinguishable in effect from casual P2P file sharing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is there a difference between selling pirated CDs and having some MP3s sitting in the upload folder of P2P software ?
If not , is there a difference between potentially uploading mp3s and publicly performing a copyrighted song by singing or humming it in a crowd ?
Is there a difference between singing a song which is on a CD you own versus singing a song which you only heard for free on the radio , or perhaps even heard via public performance infringement from someone 's cell phone ring tone ?
I think it 's obvious that personal use is almost always fair use , versus infringement for profit .
File sharing is much closer in actual harm and intent to playing a stereo in a public place , or even a library .
The only difference is that libraries are so inefficient right now that people do n't automatically see the similarity .
If you could check a CD out from a library , play the song you wanted , and return it in no more time than it took to play the song , it would be indistinguishable in effect from casual P2P file sharing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is there a difference between selling pirated CDs and having some MP3s sitting in the upload folder of P2P software?
If not, is there a difference between potentially uploading mp3s and publicly performing a copyrighted song by singing or humming it in a crowd?
Is there a difference between singing a song which is on a CD you own versus singing a song which you only heard for free on the radio, or perhaps even heard via public performance infringement from someone's cell phone ring tone?
I think it's obvious that personal use is almost always fair use, versus infringement for profit.
File sharing is much closer in actual harm and intent to playing a stereo in a public place, or even a library.
The only difference is that libraries are so inefficient right now that people don't automatically see the similarity.
If you could check a CD out from a library, play the song you wanted, and return it in no more time than it took to play the song, it would be indistinguishable in effect from casual P2P file sharing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28454481</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28455913</id>
	<title>Re:Wow</title>
	<author>Terminal Saint</author>
	<datestamp>1245870480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As opposed to figuratively hating open source?</htmltext>
<tokenext>As opposed to figuratively hating open source ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As opposed to figuratively hating open source?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453381</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453417</id>
	<title>If you want ScummVMs take on this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245862260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here you go:<br><a href="http://sev-notes.blogspot.com/2009/06/gpl-scummvm-and-violations.html" title="blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">http://sev-notes.blogspot.com/2009/06/gpl-scummvm-and-violations.html</a> [blogspot.com]</p><p>From The blog Post:</p><p>
&nbsp; The finals</p><p>Thus, the facts were:<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * There is a GPL violation (their denial has to be proven in a court, strings in executables and the bug above clearly show it)<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Atari could not release source codes because of Nintendo NDA<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Atari could not put GPL clause because of Nintendo NDA<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Atari could not "buy out" ScummVM from us<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * There is no possibility to double license ScummVM, at least SCUMM engine<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * We do not need any money as a "bribe to keep silent"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here you go : http : //sev-notes.blogspot.com/2009/06/gpl-scummvm-and-violations.html [ blogspot.com ] From The blog Post :   The finalsThus , the facts were :         * There is a GPL violation ( their denial has to be proven in a court , strings in executables and the bug above clearly show it )         * Atari could not release source codes because of Nintendo NDA         * Atari could not put GPL clause because of Nintendo NDA         * Atari could not " buy out " ScummVM from us         * There is no possibility to double license ScummVM , at least SCUMM engine         * We do not need any money as a " bribe to keep silent "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here you go:http://sev-notes.blogspot.com/2009/06/gpl-scummvm-and-violations.html [blogspot.com]From The blog Post:
  The finalsThus, the facts were:
        * There is a GPL violation (their denial has to be proven in a court, strings in executables and the bug above clearly show it)
        * Atari could not release source codes because of Nintendo NDA
        * Atari could not put GPL clause because of Nintendo NDA
        * Atari could not "buy out" ScummVM from us
        * There is no possibility to double license ScummVM, at least SCUMM engine
        * We do not need any money as a "bribe to keep silent"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453575</id>
	<title>Re:Wow</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245862800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Nintendo literally hates open source.  Guess I'll skip that DSi.</p></div><p>I'm sure they'll cry themselves to sleep at night at the loss of your purchase.</p><p>But just so we're clear, here:  which console manufacturer that allows the sale of open source software through their download service do you prefer?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>literally</p></div><p>By the way, that word doesn't mean what you think it means.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nintendo literally hates open source .
Guess I 'll skip that DSi.I 'm sure they 'll cry themselves to sleep at night at the loss of your purchase.But just so we 're clear , here : which console manufacturer that allows the sale of open source software through their download service do you prefer ? literallyBy the way , that word does n't mean what you think it means .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nintendo literally hates open source.
Guess I'll skip that DSi.I'm sure they'll cry themselves to sleep at night at the loss of your purchase.But just so we're clear, here:  which console manufacturer that allows the sale of open source software through their download service do you prefer?literallyBy the way, that word doesn't mean what you think it means.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453381</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28454019</id>
	<title>Re:It's only copyright</title>
	<author>bencoder</author>
	<datestamp>1245864360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm sure there are a fair few of us who take option 2/3 and we are totally aware of the hypocrisy of the open source crazies.
<br> <br>
I don't believe in intellectual property at all and I am accepting of every consequence that goes along with that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure there are a fair few of us who take option 2/3 and we are totally aware of the hypocrisy of the open source crazies .
I do n't believe in intellectual property at all and I am accepting of every consequence that goes along with that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure there are a fair few of us who take option 2/3 and we are totally aware of the hypocrisy of the open source crazies.
I don't believe in intellectual property at all and I am accepting of every consequence that goes along with that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453411</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28457591</id>
	<title>Re:I'm confused</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245834000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Who the hell is "Slashdot"? There are now over 100,500,000 individual accounts registered on this site.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who the hell is " Slashdot " ?
There are now over 100,500,000 individual accounts registered on this site .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who the hell is "Slashdot"?
There are now over 100,500,000 individual accounts registered on this site.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28454829</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453551</id>
	<title>Re:If you want ScummVMs take on this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245862740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why are you reproducing the second link in the article?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why are you reproducing the second link in the article ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why are you reproducing the second link in the article?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453417</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28456045</id>
	<title>The important point</title>
	<author>Toonol</author>
	<datestamp>1245871080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The bit about open source/GPL software being used isn't the important part of this story.  The major point that should be learned is that sub-sub-contracting out to development companies in (sorry, Russia) practically lawless countries can expose the parent company to SEVERE repercussions.  Atari wasn't really to blame, other than being too trusting, but they're bearing the costs.  The major development houses NEED to be actively involved, at least in an auditing sense, with whoever is actually writing the code.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The bit about open source/GPL software being used is n't the important part of this story .
The major point that should be learned is that sub-sub-contracting out to development companies in ( sorry , Russia ) practically lawless countries can expose the parent company to SEVERE repercussions .
Atari was n't really to blame , other than being too trusting , but they 're bearing the costs .
The major development houses NEED to be actively involved , at least in an auditing sense , with whoever is actually writing the code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The bit about open source/GPL software being used isn't the important part of this story.
The major point that should be learned is that sub-sub-contracting out to development companies in (sorry, Russia) practically lawless countries can expose the parent company to SEVERE repercussions.
Atari wasn't really to blame, other than being too trusting, but they're bearing the costs.
The major development houses NEED to be actively involved, at least in an auditing sense, with whoever is actually writing the code.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453529</id>
	<title>GPL Grey Area</title>
	<author>Adrian Lopez</author>
	<datestamp>1245862680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Considering SCUMM is a virtual machine, wouldn't the files being interpreted by SCUMM be considered data rather than code? I'm not aware of any terms in the GPL which require the authors of a data file that's read by GPL'd software to release that data under the terms of the GPL.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Considering SCUMM is a virtual machine , would n't the files being interpreted by SCUMM be considered data rather than code ?
I 'm not aware of any terms in the GPL which require the authors of a data file that 's read by GPL 'd software to release that data under the terms of the GPL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Considering SCUMM is a virtual machine, wouldn't the files being interpreted by SCUMM be considered data rather than code?
I'm not aware of any terms in the GPL which require the authors of a data file that's read by GPL'd software to release that data under the terms of the GPL.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28454077</id>
	<title>Re:Wow</title>
	<author>nicolas.kassis</author>
	<datestamp>1245864540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hum, the GPL isn't to protect Developers right but Users. The fact that you don't need to edit the code today doesn't mean you shouldn't have the right to do so in the future. This is why some prefer GPL code, for the guarantee that if they ever need too, they can edit the code.

I do contribute to open source projects but if I didn't then I would still want the option.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hum , the GPL is n't to protect Developers right but Users .
The fact that you do n't need to edit the code today does n't mean you should n't have the right to do so in the future .
This is why some prefer GPL code , for the guarantee that if they ever need too , they can edit the code .
I do contribute to open source projects but if I did n't then I would still want the option .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hum, the GPL isn't to protect Developers right but Users.
The fact that you don't need to edit the code today doesn't mean you shouldn't have the right to do so in the future.
This is why some prefer GPL code, for the guarantee that if they ever need too, they can edit the code.
I do contribute to open source projects but if I didn't then I would still want the option.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453601</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28454557</id>
	<title>Re:I hope the wrong lesson isn't drawn...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245866160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Companies do have to be careful how they use GPL code, sure</p></div></blockquote><p>
That's a bad way to put it.  Companies need to be careful about how they use <em>anybody</em> else's code.  GPL isn't a special case at all.  The same exact arguments would apply to using libraries that come with someone's SDK, for example.  Whenever you make derived works, you always have to make sure that you're doing something the other party will allow.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Companies do have to be careful how they use GPL code , sure That 's a bad way to put it .
Companies need to be careful about how they use anybody else 's code .
GPL is n't a special case at all .
The same exact arguments would apply to using libraries that come with someone 's SDK , for example .
Whenever you make derived works , you always have to make sure that you 're doing something the other party will allow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Companies do have to be careful how they use GPL code, sure
That's a bad way to put it.
Companies need to be careful about how they use anybody else's code.
GPL isn't a special case at all.
The same exact arguments would apply to using libraries that come with someone's SDK, for example.
Whenever you make derived works, you always have to make sure that you're doing something the other party will allow.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453409</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28463431</id>
	<title>Re:Wrong Choice of License?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245872100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Want to bet? In the case of MIT or BSD license, the source code will be "taken" and never be heard of again.</p><p>This is so typical of an old, closed mind, backward thinking traditional Japanese companies: observe how their lawyers react. Besides, companies only give credits when there may be an intangible benefits or advertising effect.</p><p>With GPL, you get attention either way.  Licensing laws are complicated and the company bosses would understand even less than their lawyers.  The idea of releasing source code of ScummVM port is not so bad, it does not requires you to release the source code of the entire game anyway. But company like this would slam everything with an NDA just to be safe.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Want to bet ?
In the case of MIT or BSD license , the source code will be " taken " and never be heard of again.This is so typical of an old , closed mind , backward thinking traditional Japanese companies : observe how their lawyers react .
Besides , companies only give credits when there may be an intangible benefits or advertising effect.With GPL , you get attention either way .
Licensing laws are complicated and the company bosses would understand even less than their lawyers .
The idea of releasing source code of ScummVM port is not so bad , it does not requires you to release the source code of the entire game anyway .
But company like this would slam everything with an NDA just to be safe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Want to bet?
In the case of MIT or BSD license, the source code will be "taken" and never be heard of again.This is so typical of an old, closed mind, backward thinking traditional Japanese companies: observe how their lawyers react.
Besides, companies only give credits when there may be an intangible benefits or advertising effect.With GPL, you get attention either way.
Licensing laws are complicated and the company bosses would understand even less than their lawyers.
The idea of releasing source code of ScummVM port is not so bad, it does not requires you to release the source code of the entire game anyway.
But company like this would slam everything with an NDA just to be safe.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28456905</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28455119</id>
	<title>D&#195;&#169;j&#195; vu</title>
	<author>Tinctorius</author>
	<datestamp>1245868140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'll guess Atari has yet another game to bury.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll guess Atari has yet another game to bury .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll guess Atari has yet another game to bury.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28455397</id>
	<title>Does GPL require the code to compile?</title>
	<author>Midnight Thunder</author>
	<datestamp>1245869040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Given that you need a license to use Nintendo's API, would the GPL allow the source code to be compliant, even if there was no way to compile it without the missing API? I know there is the NDA which compounds the issue, but I am thinking of a scenario where there is no NDA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Given that you need a license to use Nintendo 's API , would the GPL allow the source code to be compliant , even if there was no way to compile it without the missing API ?
I know there is the NDA which compounds the issue , but I am thinking of a scenario where there is no NDA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Given that you need a license to use Nintendo's API, would the GPL allow the source code to be compliant, even if there was no way to compile it without the missing API?
I know there is the NDA which compounds the issue, but I am thinking of a scenario where there is no NDA.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28454629</id>
	<title>Re:If you want ScummVMs take on this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245866400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Get the code from the people who made it and "sold it" to Atari.  They're the ones that violated to begin with, and aren't covered under Nintendo's NDA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Get the code from the people who made it and " sold it " to Atari .
They 're the ones that violated to begin with , and are n't covered under Nintendo 's NDA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Get the code from the people who made it and "sold it" to Atari.
They're the ones that violated to begin with, and aren't covered under Nintendo's NDA.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453417</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28465455</id>
	<title>Thrown away or...</title>
	<author>dintech</author>
	<datestamp>1245939960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>destoryed [sic]</p><blockquote><div><p>The end of the story?</p></div></blockquote></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>destoryed [ sic ] The end of the story ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>destoryed [sic]The end of the story?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28455019</id>
	<title>Re:They should just license the original SCUMM</title>
	<author>blitzkrieg3</author>
	<datestamp>1245867840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Can they just license the original engine from lucasarts then? Give some royalty checks to steve purcell and ron gilbert and whoever else made it as part of the deal!</p></div><p>That would cost money.  The copyright violation is free (until you get caught).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can they just license the original engine from lucasarts then ?
Give some royalty checks to steve purcell and ron gilbert and whoever else made it as part of the deal ! That would cost money .
The copyright violation is free ( until you get caught ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can they just license the original engine from lucasarts then?
Give some royalty checks to steve purcell and ron gilbert and whoever else made it as part of the deal!That would cost money.
The copyright violation is free (until you get caught).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28454183</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28455153</id>
	<title>Re:At least one Wii game uses opensource</title>
	<author>blitzkrieg3</author>
	<datestamp>1245868200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.lua.org/license.html" title="lua.org">"Lua is free software: it can be used for any purpose, including commercial purposes, at absolutely no cost. No paperwork, no royalties, no GNU-like "copyleft" restrictions, either."</a> [lua.org]
<br> <br>

Released under the MIT license, which is a pretty typical non copyleft OSS license.  What the author probably meant was that Nintendo prohibits copyleft licenses, which is a small technicality.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Lua is free software : it can be used for any purpose , including commercial purposes , at absolutely no cost .
No paperwork , no royalties , no GNU-like " copyleft " restrictions , either .
" [ lua.org ] Released under the MIT license , which is a pretty typical non copyleft OSS license .
What the author probably meant was that Nintendo prohibits copyleft licenses , which is a small technicality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Lua is free software: it can be used for any purpose, including commercial purposes, at absolutely no cost.
No paperwork, no royalties, no GNU-like "copyleft" restrictions, either.
" [lua.org]
 

Released under the MIT license, which is a pretty typical non copyleft OSS license.
What the author probably meant was that Nintendo prohibits copyleft licenses, which is a small technicality.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28454429</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453537</id>
	<title>flamebait</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245862680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>hahahaha take that freetards.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>hahahaha take that freetards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>hahahaha take that freetards.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28455371</id>
	<title>Most wii's stop working a month after the warrenty</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245868920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>it's a fact that most wii's last for only 13 months, and then cease operation with with a 'cant read disc' error.. it then costs $165 to have them replace the silly dvd drive that only reads the subchanel data for another one.. which is why my wii sits on a shelf gathering dust now</p><p>for some reason I much prefer the DS lite, as their are no moving parts to wear out, and stop reading disks! plus it has two screens...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's a fact that most wii 's last for only 13 months , and then cease operation with with a 'cant read disc ' error.. it then costs $ 165 to have them replace the silly dvd drive that only reads the subchanel data for another one.. which is why my wii sits on a shelf gathering dust nowfor some reason I much prefer the DS lite , as their are no moving parts to wear out , and stop reading disks !
plus it has two screens.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it's a fact that most wii's last for only 13 months, and then cease operation with with a 'cant read disc' error.. it then costs $165 to have them replace the silly dvd drive that only reads the subchanel data for another one.. which is why my wii sits on a shelf gathering dust nowfor some reason I much prefer the DS lite, as their are no moving parts to wear out, and stop reading disks!
plus it has two screens...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28454007</id>
	<title>paul524</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245864300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>He might not be a household name, but Shigeru Miyamoto is one of the past century's most successful artists and, undisputedly, the video game industry's most respected designer.

The father of Mario and countless other gaming icons, Miyamoto's genius is stamped on every product he touches.

Miyamoto, 56, is the creative force behind many of the world's most popular video games. Nintendo has sold hundreds of millions of Miyamoto-designed games worth billions of dollars.

His masterpieces Super Mario 64 and The Legend Of Zelda: Ocarina Of Time are often cited as the best games ever made, and his more recent products have proved pivotal in the astonishing success of Nintendo's Wii and DS platforms.

Just a few years ago, critics claimed Miyamoto was out of touch with the industry he helped create. After joining Nintendo in 1977 and designing the arcade smash Donkey Kong just a few years later, Miyamoto enjoyed a string of hits, including Super Mario Bros, The Legend of Zelda and Star Fox.

But as the designer entered his 50s and Nintendo's share of the ever-growing interactive entertainment industry began to wane at the expense of Sony's trendsetting PlayStation, Miyamoto was often berated for refusing to grow up.

In recent years the rest of the industry has chased the holy grail of photo-realism and explored increasingly violent and mature content typified by the Grand Theft Auto series. But, like a Japanese Peter Pan, Miyamoto refused to follow suit and continued to produce abstract, childlike cartoon worlds.

In the last console generation, Nintendo's GameCube was outsold dramatically by the PlayStation 2 and even the brash newcomer, Xbox. Nintendo's future became increasingly uncertain and it seemed that Miyamoto and his beloved company were becoming anachronisms in a rapidly changing and maturing industry now suddenly more focused on adults than children.

Yet today Nintendo is again the industry leader. Miyamoto and his president, Satoru Iwata, have orchestrated an astonishing comeback by producing incredibly novel experiences such as Nintendogs, Brain Training, Wii Fit and Wii Sports, as well as clever updates of more traditional Nintendo fare such as New Super Mario Bros., Mario Kart and Super Mario Galaxy.

Nintendo has now sold more than 50 million Wii consoles and in excess of 100 million DS handhelds, capturing the public's attention with their novel control schemes and vibrant software.

Crucially, Nintendo has been able to capture an extremely wide and diverse audience, including those who previously seemed immune to video gaming's charms, such as young girls (Nintendogs), middle-aged housewives (Wii Fit) and even senior citizens (Brain Training and Wii Sports).
Ad Feedback

At the recent Electronic Entertainment Expo in Los Angeles, The Age questioned Miyamoto about whether he felt vindicated by Nintendo's recent success after being so regularly criticised for making "childish" games. But the softly spoken Miyamoto said through an interpreter: "I think the criticism (that) the things that I was creating were childish was really more of a PR strategy that other companies may have used.

"I don't think what I was creating was childish at all. I just make things that are very positive and bright. I think that creating something for children is different than creating something that has a bright and positive attitude."

Anyone who has sampled a Miyamoto game will undoubtedly agree that their visuals and instant accessibility often belie his games' rich depth and challenge. Miyamoto says Nintendo's success has not come through any particular focus on a specific audience, such as older players or women.

"What we have always been saying is that we are focused on a really broad audience and we're trying to make games that appeal to everyone."

It is not a strategy Nintendo stumbled upon by chance or in desperation. In an interview with The Age at E3 2004, Miyamoto did not hide his disdain for the products his industry typically spat out. "In the realm of entertainment, you need innovation.

"There's this habit of s</htmltext>
<tokenext>He might not be a household name , but Shigeru Miyamoto is one of the past century 's most successful artists and , undisputedly , the video game industry 's most respected designer .
The father of Mario and countless other gaming icons , Miyamoto 's genius is stamped on every product he touches .
Miyamoto , 56 , is the creative force behind many of the world 's most popular video games .
Nintendo has sold hundreds of millions of Miyamoto-designed games worth billions of dollars .
His masterpieces Super Mario 64 and The Legend Of Zelda : Ocarina Of Time are often cited as the best games ever made , and his more recent products have proved pivotal in the astonishing success of Nintendo 's Wii and DS platforms .
Just a few years ago , critics claimed Miyamoto was out of touch with the industry he helped create .
After joining Nintendo in 1977 and designing the arcade smash Donkey Kong just a few years later , Miyamoto enjoyed a string of hits , including Super Mario Bros , The Legend of Zelda and Star Fox .
But as the designer entered his 50s and Nintendo 's share of the ever-growing interactive entertainment industry began to wane at the expense of Sony 's trendsetting PlayStation , Miyamoto was often berated for refusing to grow up .
In recent years the rest of the industry has chased the holy grail of photo-realism and explored increasingly violent and mature content typified by the Grand Theft Auto series .
But , like a Japanese Peter Pan , Miyamoto refused to follow suit and continued to produce abstract , childlike cartoon worlds .
In the last console generation , Nintendo 's GameCube was outsold dramatically by the PlayStation 2 and even the brash newcomer , Xbox .
Nintendo 's future became increasingly uncertain and it seemed that Miyamoto and his beloved company were becoming anachronisms in a rapidly changing and maturing industry now suddenly more focused on adults than children .
Yet today Nintendo is again the industry leader .
Miyamoto and his president , Satoru Iwata , have orchestrated an astonishing comeback by producing incredibly novel experiences such as Nintendogs , Brain Training , Wii Fit and Wii Sports , as well as clever updates of more traditional Nintendo fare such as New Super Mario Bros. , Mario Kart and Super Mario Galaxy .
Nintendo has now sold more than 50 million Wii consoles and in excess of 100 million DS handhelds , capturing the public 's attention with their novel control schemes and vibrant software .
Crucially , Nintendo has been able to capture an extremely wide and diverse audience , including those who previously seemed immune to video gaming 's charms , such as young girls ( Nintendogs ) , middle-aged housewives ( Wii Fit ) and even senior citizens ( Brain Training and Wii Sports ) .
Ad Feedback At the recent Electronic Entertainment Expo in Los Angeles , The Age questioned Miyamoto about whether he felt vindicated by Nintendo 's recent success after being so regularly criticised for making " childish " games .
But the softly spoken Miyamoto said through an interpreter : " I think the criticism ( that ) the things that I was creating were childish was really more of a PR strategy that other companies may have used .
" I do n't think what I was creating was childish at all .
I just make things that are very positive and bright .
I think that creating something for children is different than creating something that has a bright and positive attitude .
" Anyone who has sampled a Miyamoto game will undoubtedly agree that their visuals and instant accessibility often belie his games ' rich depth and challenge .
Miyamoto says Nintendo 's success has not come through any particular focus on a specific audience , such as older players or women .
" What we have always been saying is that we are focused on a really broad audience and we 're trying to make games that appeal to everyone .
" It is not a strategy Nintendo stumbled upon by chance or in desperation .
In an interview with The Age at E3 2004 , Miyamoto did not hide his disdain for the products his industry typically spat out .
" In the realm of entertainment , you need innovation .
" There 's this habit of s</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He might not be a household name, but Shigeru Miyamoto is one of the past century's most successful artists and, undisputedly, the video game industry's most respected designer.
The father of Mario and countless other gaming icons, Miyamoto's genius is stamped on every product he touches.
Miyamoto, 56, is the creative force behind many of the world's most popular video games.
Nintendo has sold hundreds of millions of Miyamoto-designed games worth billions of dollars.
His masterpieces Super Mario 64 and The Legend Of Zelda: Ocarina Of Time are often cited as the best games ever made, and his more recent products have proved pivotal in the astonishing success of Nintendo's Wii and DS platforms.
Just a few years ago, critics claimed Miyamoto was out of touch with the industry he helped create.
After joining Nintendo in 1977 and designing the arcade smash Donkey Kong just a few years later, Miyamoto enjoyed a string of hits, including Super Mario Bros, The Legend of Zelda and Star Fox.
But as the designer entered his 50s and Nintendo's share of the ever-growing interactive entertainment industry began to wane at the expense of Sony's trendsetting PlayStation, Miyamoto was often berated for refusing to grow up.
In recent years the rest of the industry has chased the holy grail of photo-realism and explored increasingly violent and mature content typified by the Grand Theft Auto series.
But, like a Japanese Peter Pan, Miyamoto refused to follow suit and continued to produce abstract, childlike cartoon worlds.
In the last console generation, Nintendo's GameCube was outsold dramatically by the PlayStation 2 and even the brash newcomer, Xbox.
Nintendo's future became increasingly uncertain and it seemed that Miyamoto and his beloved company were becoming anachronisms in a rapidly changing and maturing industry now suddenly more focused on adults than children.
Yet today Nintendo is again the industry leader.
Miyamoto and his president, Satoru Iwata, have orchestrated an astonishing comeback by producing incredibly novel experiences such as Nintendogs, Brain Training, Wii Fit and Wii Sports, as well as clever updates of more traditional Nintendo fare such as New Super Mario Bros., Mario Kart and Super Mario Galaxy.
Nintendo has now sold more than 50 million Wii consoles and in excess of 100 million DS handhelds, capturing the public's attention with their novel control schemes and vibrant software.
Crucially, Nintendo has been able to capture an extremely wide and diverse audience, including those who previously seemed immune to video gaming's charms, such as young girls (Nintendogs), middle-aged housewives (Wii Fit) and even senior citizens (Brain Training and Wii Sports).
Ad Feedback

At the recent Electronic Entertainment Expo in Los Angeles, The Age questioned Miyamoto about whether he felt vindicated by Nintendo's recent success after being so regularly criticised for making "childish" games.
But the softly spoken Miyamoto said through an interpreter: "I think the criticism (that) the things that I was creating were childish was really more of a PR strategy that other companies may have used.
"I don't think what I was creating was childish at all.
I just make things that are very positive and bright.
I think that creating something for children is different than creating something that has a bright and positive attitude.
"

Anyone who has sampled a Miyamoto game will undoubtedly agree that their visuals and instant accessibility often belie his games' rich depth and challenge.
Miyamoto says Nintendo's success has not come through any particular focus on a specific audience, such as older players or women.
"What we have always been saying is that we are focused on a really broad audience and we're trying to make games that appeal to everyone.
"

It is not a strategy Nintendo stumbled upon by chance or in desperation.
In an interview with The Age at E3 2004, Miyamoto did not hide his disdain for the products his industry typically spat out.
"In the realm of entertainment, you need innovation.
"There's this habit of s</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28454691</id>
	<title>Can Dolphin be used as replacement OS for Wii?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245866640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Could Dolphin (Wii/GC emulator) be used as a replacement OS for the Wii?</p><p>I run homebrew apps on the wii, and an occasional wii game (usually wii sports).</p><p>I wish that such anti-competitive practice of Nintendo was illegal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Could Dolphin ( Wii/GC emulator ) be used as a replacement OS for the Wii ? I run homebrew apps on the wii , and an occasional wii game ( usually wii sports ) .I wish that such anti-competitive practice of Nintendo was illegal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could Dolphin (Wii/GC emulator) be used as a replacement OS for the Wii?I run homebrew apps on the wii, and an occasional wii game (usually wii sports).I wish that such anti-competitive practice of Nintendo was illegal.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28456765</id>
	<title>Re:I hope the wrong lesson isn't drawn...</title>
	<author>bennomatic</author>
	<datestamp>1245873960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's true in so many cases.  I friend of mine runs a clothing company which prides itself on being a good corporate citizen.  They have good working conditions, wages and benefits for their employees.

<br> <br>
Occasionally, they need to subcontract, and once, several years ago, one of their subcontractors subcontracted out to another company without due diligence, and this sub-sub-contractor did some Very Bad Things.  They hired undocumented workers.  They did not pay a fair wage.  They closed up shop after the job was done and did not pay anyone for their last couple of weeks of work.

<br> <br>
This sub-sub was terrible, in that they had apparently done the same thing several times, under different names.  The owner--or at least the guy who walked away with the most money, who did not claim ownership of any of the versions of this company he had opened and folded--was very well versed in hiding his assets and covering his connection to the illegal activities.
<br> <br>
Because the original client (my friend's company) did not do their due diligence, and did not specifically include verification steps in the subcontractor's contract, they were held equally responsible, and had to share in not only the payment of back wages, but also several hundred thousand dollars in punitive fees.

<br> <br>
Of course, because the responsible party was a friend of mine, I feel this was a pity, but given how common the Reagan defense is, it was probably the right thing to do.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's true in so many cases .
I friend of mine runs a clothing company which prides itself on being a good corporate citizen .
They have good working conditions , wages and benefits for their employees .
Occasionally , they need to subcontract , and once , several years ago , one of their subcontractors subcontracted out to another company without due diligence , and this sub-sub-contractor did some Very Bad Things .
They hired undocumented workers .
They did not pay a fair wage .
They closed up shop after the job was done and did not pay anyone for their last couple of weeks of work .
This sub-sub was terrible , in that they had apparently done the same thing several times , under different names .
The owner--or at least the guy who walked away with the most money , who did not claim ownership of any of the versions of this company he had opened and folded--was very well versed in hiding his assets and covering his connection to the illegal activities .
Because the original client ( my friend 's company ) did not do their due diligence , and did not specifically include verification steps in the subcontractor 's contract , they were held equally responsible , and had to share in not only the payment of back wages , but also several hundred thousand dollars in punitive fees .
Of course , because the responsible party was a friend of mine , I feel this was a pity , but given how common the Reagan defense is , it was probably the right thing to do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's true in so many cases.
I friend of mine runs a clothing company which prides itself on being a good corporate citizen.
They have good working conditions, wages and benefits for their employees.
Occasionally, they need to subcontract, and once, several years ago, one of their subcontractors subcontracted out to another company without due diligence, and this sub-sub-contractor did some Very Bad Things.
They hired undocumented workers.
They did not pay a fair wage.
They closed up shop after the job was done and did not pay anyone for their last couple of weeks of work.
This sub-sub was terrible, in that they had apparently done the same thing several times, under different names.
The owner--or at least the guy who walked away with the most money, who did not claim ownership of any of the versions of this company he had opened and folded--was very well versed in hiding his assets and covering his connection to the illegal activities.
Because the original client (my friend's company) did not do their due diligence, and did not specifically include verification steps in the subcontractor's contract, they were held equally responsible, and had to share in not only the payment of back wages, but also several hundred thousand dollars in punitive fees.
Of course, because the responsible party was a friend of mine, I feel this was a pity, but given how common the Reagan defense is, it was probably the right thing to do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453409</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28454613</id>
	<title>What's the deal with 'zee' Ukraine</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245866340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From <a href="http://www.misticsoftware.com//" title="misticsoftware.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.misticsoftware.com//</a> [misticsoftware.com] </p><p><div class="quote"><p>Mistic Software is an independent developer located in Montreal, Canada. Mistic has spread its success across the world, adding subsidiaries in France and the Ukraine.</p></div><p>I wonder why Ukraine got emphasized over Canada and France.<br>And, BTW, it's just Ukraine, no 'the' necessary: <a href="http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/ukraine.html/" title="wsu.edu" rel="nofollow">http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/ukraine.html/</a> [wsu.edu]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From http : //www.misticsoftware.com// [ misticsoftware.com ] Mistic Software is an independent developer located in Montreal , Canada .
Mistic has spread its success across the world , adding subsidiaries in France and the Ukraine.I wonder why Ukraine got emphasized over Canada and France.And , BTW , it 's just Ukraine , no 'the ' necessary : http : //www.wsu.edu/ ~ brians/errors/ukraine.html/ [ wsu.edu ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From http://www.misticsoftware.com// [misticsoftware.com] Mistic Software is an independent developer located in Montreal, Canada.
Mistic has spread its success across the world, adding subsidiaries in France and the Ukraine.I wonder why Ukraine got emphasized over Canada and France.And, BTW, it's just Ukraine, no 'the' necessary: http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/ukraine.html/ [wsu.edu]
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28454155</id>
	<title>Re:Stable door status: open.</title>
	<author>matt328</author>
	<datestamp>1245864840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Anyone who has already purchased one of these games, or who receives a copy from someone who has, has the right to demand this now.</i>
<br> <br>
Let me know how that goes for you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone who has already purchased one of these games , or who receives a copy from someone who has , has the right to demand this now .
Let me know how that goes for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone who has already purchased one of these games, or who receives a copy from someone who has, has the right to demand this now.
Let me know how that goes for you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453557</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28454831</id>
	<title>Re:Nintendo's provision is not unusual</title>
	<author>acoster</author>
	<datestamp>1245867120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sony allows Linux to run on the PS3 to allow it to be taxed as a computer, not as a video game.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sony allows Linux to run on the PS3 to allow it to be taxed as a computer , not as a video game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sony allows Linux to run on the PS3 to allow it to be taxed as a computer, not as a video game.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453961</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28454295</id>
	<title>Subcontracting risks, not GPL is the story</title>
	<author>patSPLAT</author>
	<datestamp>1245865260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This really should be a story about the legal risks of sub contracting... if you ship the work out, then it's very difficult to make sure all your ducks are in a row.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This really should be a story about the legal risks of sub contracting... if you ship the work out , then it 's very difficult to make sure all your ducks are in a row .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This really should be a story about the legal risks of sub contracting... if you ship the work out, then it's very difficult to make sure all your ducks are in a row.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28455467</id>
	<title>Re:I hope the wrong lesson isn't drawn...</title>
	<author>Darinbob</author>
	<datestamp>1245869160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What exactly were the violations?  Modifying GPL code is allowed, and sources do not have to automatically provided unless someone requests this.  Did someone request the sources?  If there is no GPL license text available, is that a willful and egregious violation, or an oversight.<br><br>Granted, there's going to be a big problem between Atari and subcontractors.  But the whole tone of the article sounds too much like"omg I found GPL code in a commercial game!"</htmltext>
<tokenext>What exactly were the violations ?
Modifying GPL code is allowed , and sources do not have to automatically provided unless someone requests this .
Did someone request the sources ?
If there is no GPL license text available , is that a willful and egregious violation , or an oversight.Granted , there 's going to be a big problem between Atari and subcontractors .
But the whole tone of the article sounds too much like " omg I found GPL code in a commercial game !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What exactly were the violations?
Modifying GPL code is allowed, and sources do not have to automatically provided unless someone requests this.
Did someone request the sources?
If there is no GPL license text available, is that a willful and egregious violation, or an oversight.Granted, there's going to be a big problem between Atari and subcontractors.
But the whole tone of the article sounds too much like"omg I found GPL code in a commercial game!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453409</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28458753</id>
	<title>what?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245838140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Atari and Majesco seem to have been very cooperative about this whole thing, but had their hands tied by the agreement with Nintendo."</p><p>Your vendor is not my problem.</p><p>ie, the issue is between Atari/Majesco and the GPL. Whatever they agreed to with Nintendo makes no difference.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Atari and Majesco seem to have been very cooperative about this whole thing , but had their hands tied by the agreement with Nintendo .
" Your vendor is not my problem.ie , the issue is between Atari/Majesco and the GPL .
Whatever they agreed to with Nintendo makes no difference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Atari and Majesco seem to have been very cooperative about this whole thing, but had their hands tied by the agreement with Nintendo.
"Your vendor is not my problem.ie, the issue is between Atari/Majesco and the GPL.
Whatever they agreed to with Nintendo makes no difference.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453381</id>
	<title>Wow</title>
	<author>Jaysyn</author>
	<datestamp>1245862140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nintendo literally hates open source.  Guess I'll skip that DSi.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nintendo literally hates open source .
Guess I 'll skip that DSi .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nintendo literally hates open source.
Guess I'll skip that DSi.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28467733</id>
	<title>Re:It's only copyright</title>
	<author>ChaosDiscord</author>
	<datestamp>1245950940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anonymous cowards trolling doesn't really bother me.  However, the people who modded you up, please stop.  Two clues, free of charge:

</p><p>1. Slashdot posters are a wide variety of people with different opinions.  Different people having different opinions is not hypocrisy, and you're not clever for pointing out that Slashdot isn't a hivemind.

</p><p>2. There are some subtle differences between this and the Thomas case.  For the dense: Thomas did not infringe for profit.  Thomas did not claim to have created the songs.  If Thomas had distributed GPLed works (or works under a similar Creative Commons license), depending on the specifics there would likely be no crime at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anonymous cowards trolling does n't really bother me .
However , the people who modded you up , please stop .
Two clues , free of charge : 1 .
Slashdot posters are a wide variety of people with different opinions .
Different people having different opinions is not hypocrisy , and you 're not clever for pointing out that Slashdot is n't a hivemind .
2. There are some subtle differences between this and the Thomas case .
For the dense : Thomas did not infringe for profit .
Thomas did not claim to have created the songs .
If Thomas had distributed GPLed works ( or works under a similar Creative Commons license ) , depending on the specifics there would likely be no crime at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anonymous cowards trolling doesn't really bother me.
However, the people who modded you up, please stop.
Two clues, free of charge:

1.
Slashdot posters are a wide variety of people with different opinions.
Different people having different opinions is not hypocrisy, and you're not clever for pointing out that Slashdot isn't a hivemind.
2. There are some subtle differences between this and the Thomas case.
For the dense: Thomas did not infringe for profit.
Thomas did not claim to have created the songs.
If Thomas had distributed GPLed works (or works under a similar Creative Commons license), depending on the specifics there would likely be no crime at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453411</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28454039</id>
	<title>Destory?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245864420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yup, stripping everything out in favour of waggle-based minigames certainly is "destorying" games on the Wii.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yup , stripping everything out in favour of waggle-based minigames certainly is " destorying " games on the Wii .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yup, stripping everything out in favour of waggle-based minigames certainly is "destorying" games on the Wii.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28454429</id>
	<title>At least one Wii game uses opensource</title>
	<author>WillAdams</author>
	<datestamp>1245865680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Speedracer: The Videogame --- there's a notice for Lua scripting on the copyright screen, so Nintendo can't be said to be forbidding opensource solely for being opensource, so there seems to be some sort of misunderstanding or miscommunication here.</p><p>William</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Speedracer : The Videogame --- there 's a notice for Lua scripting on the copyright screen , so Nintendo ca n't be said to be forbidding opensource solely for being opensource , so there seems to be some sort of misunderstanding or miscommunication here.William</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Speedracer: The Videogame --- there's a notice for Lua scripting on the copyright screen, so Nintendo can't be said to be forbidding opensource solely for being opensource, so there seems to be some sort of misunderstanding or miscommunication here.William</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28465551</id>
	<title>Re:I'm sure I'm not alone...</title>
	<author>sorak</author>
	<datestamp>1245940380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I know why they did it, there has been a constant worry from closed-source developers that the GPL would force closed source code open. Nintendo is just covering their ass.</p></div><p>How? If Atari violates the GPL and has to release their source code, how does that hurt Nintendo?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know why they did it , there has been a constant worry from closed-source developers that the GPL would force closed source code open .
Nintendo is just covering their ass.How ?
If Atari violates the GPL and has to release their source code , how does that hurt Nintendo ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know why they did it, there has been a constant worry from closed-source developers that the GPL would force closed source code open.
Nintendo is just covering their ass.How?
If Atari violates the GPL and has to release their source code, how does that hurt Nintendo?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453463</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28461007</id>
	<title>Re:The important point</title>
	<author>maglor\_83</author>
	<datestamp>1245849180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why are you apologising to Russia, when the country in question is Ukraine?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why are you apologising to Russia , when the country in question is Ukraine ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why are you apologising to Russia, when the country in question is Ukraine?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28456045</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28454183</id>
	<title>They should just license the original SCUMM</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245864900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can they just license the original engine from lucasarts then? Give some royalty checks to steve purcell and ron gilbert and whoever else made it as part of the deal!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can they just license the original engine from lucasarts then ?
Give some royalty checks to steve purcell and ron gilbert and whoever else made it as part of the deal !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can they just license the original engine from lucasarts then?
Give some royalty checks to steve purcell and ron gilbert and whoever else made it as part of the deal!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28463891</id>
	<title>Please report to the nearest disintegration chambe</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245921120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>r  and also bring your wii and the game(s).  We wouldnt want anyone else to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>r and also bring your wii and the game ( s ) .
We wouldnt want anyone else to ... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>r  and also bring your wii and the game(s).
We wouldnt want anyone else to ....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28454087</id>
	<title>Sold "non-open" license?</title>
	<author>phorm</author>
	<datestamp>1245864540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I suppose the ability to do this would depend on what software/libs SCUMMVM uses and whether they're GPL, but isn't it often possible for a company to sell a license which permits the use of GPL'ed code without revealing sources (dual-licensing, etc).</p><p>Of course, that would only likely work if the engine isn't using GPL'ed libs, because they'd still be locked to the GPL at that point, I believe.</p><p>I'm not a FOSS licensing expert though, but that was my understanding of things.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I suppose the ability to do this would depend on what software/libs SCUMMVM uses and whether they 're GPL , but is n't it often possible for a company to sell a license which permits the use of GPL'ed code without revealing sources ( dual-licensing , etc ) .Of course , that would only likely work if the engine is n't using GPL'ed libs , because they 'd still be locked to the GPL at that point , I believe.I 'm not a FOSS licensing expert though , but that was my understanding of things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suppose the ability to do this would depend on what software/libs SCUMMVM uses and whether they're GPL, but isn't it often possible for a company to sell a license which permits the use of GPL'ed code without revealing sources (dual-licensing, etc).Of course, that would only likely work if the engine isn't using GPL'ed libs, because they'd still be locked to the GPL at that point, I believe.I'm not a FOSS licensing expert though, but that was my understanding of things.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453417</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28461137</id>
	<title>Re:It's only copyright</title>
	<author>catprog</author>
	<datestamp>1245850260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>1. Atari should pay 3x the retail cost of the GPL code. 3 x $0 = $0</i></p><p>Jammie Thomas did not try to sell the music as her own.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Atari should pay 3x the retail cost of the GPL code .
3 x $ 0 = $ 0Jammie Thomas did not try to sell the music as her own .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Atari should pay 3x the retail cost of the GPL code.
3 x $0 = $0Jammie Thomas did not try to sell the music as her own.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453411</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28454869</id>
	<title>"Viral" = flamebait</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245867300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Nintendo is obviously concerned about the viral nature of GPL'ed code.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Use of "viral" is how we know you're a troll.  All proprietary code is just as "viral."  In fact the reason the games must be destroyed (Atari had no way to resolve the situation) is that Nintendo's signing key, SDK libraries, and whatever else, was "viral" and tainted Atari's product such that it couldn't co-exist with the scummvm code.
</p><p>
"Viral" is just a way of saying that derived works come with conditions, but <em>said</em> in a pejorative way, and intended to imply (and by that I mean "mislead") that the GPL imposing conditions is somehow <em>unusual</em>, rather than the every day normal practice, as Nintendo demonstrated with their conditions on Atari.
</p><p>
If you want to exclude someone and show them as a special case, then sing praises for the BSD and similar licenses.  But don't damn the GPL without also damning all the proprietary vendors in the same breath, because they're all just as bad.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nintendo is obviously concerned about the viral nature of GPL'ed code .
Use of " viral " is how we know you 're a troll .
All proprietary code is just as " viral .
" In fact the reason the games must be destroyed ( Atari had no way to resolve the situation ) is that Nintendo 's signing key , SDK libraries , and whatever else , was " viral " and tainted Atari 's product such that it could n't co-exist with the scummvm code .
" Viral " is just a way of saying that derived works come with conditions , but said in a pejorative way , and intended to imply ( and by that I mean " mislead " ) that the GPL imposing conditions is somehow unusual , rather than the every day normal practice , as Nintendo demonstrated with their conditions on Atari .
If you want to exclude someone and show them as a special case , then sing praises for the BSD and similar licenses .
But do n't damn the GPL without also damning all the proprietary vendors in the same breath , because they 're all just as bad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nintendo is obviously concerned about the viral nature of GPL'ed code.
Use of "viral" is how we know you're a troll.
All proprietary code is just as "viral.
"  In fact the reason the games must be destroyed (Atari had no way to resolve the situation) is that Nintendo's signing key, SDK libraries, and whatever else, was "viral" and tainted Atari's product such that it couldn't co-exist with the scummvm code.
"Viral" is just a way of saying that derived works come with conditions, but said in a pejorative way, and intended to imply (and by that I mean "mislead") that the GPL imposing conditions is somehow unusual, rather than the every day normal practice, as Nintendo demonstrated with their conditions on Atari.
If you want to exclude someone and show them as a special case, then sing praises for the BSD and similar licenses.
But don't damn the GPL without also damning all the proprietary vendors in the same breath, because they're all just as bad.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453601</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28455025</id>
	<title>Re:It's only copyright</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245867840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You make the assumption of equivalent usefulness between musical artistic creation, and software artistic creation. It isn't. You likely know this, however chose to pay devil's advocate.</p><p>My point? I have yet to see the audio signature from an audio track do the same thing as a binary executable on my linux system. Unless you can point me to an example, your argument fails, and fails HARD!!!!!!!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You make the assumption of equivalent usefulness between musical artistic creation , and software artistic creation .
It is n't .
You likely know this , however chose to pay devil 's advocate.My point ?
I have yet to see the audio signature from an audio track do the same thing as a binary executable on my linux system .
Unless you can point me to an example , your argument fails , and fails HARD ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You make the assumption of equivalent usefulness between musical artistic creation, and software artistic creation.
It isn't.
You likely know this, however chose to pay devil's advocate.My point?
I have yet to see the audio signature from an audio track do the same thing as a binary executable on my linux system.
Unless you can point me to an example, your argument fails, and fails HARD!!!!!!!!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453411</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28454103</id>
	<title>Re:Wow</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245864600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Words posted on slashdot to not pay the bills. Nintendo is obviously concerned about the viral nature of GPL'ed code.</p></div><p>Far as I know, the GPL can't be applied retroactively to the external platform the application is built on.  It ain't that viral<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Words posted on slashdot to not pay the bills .
Nintendo is obviously concerned about the viral nature of GPL'ed code.Far as I know , the GPL ca n't be applied retroactively to the external platform the application is built on .
It ai n't that viral ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Words posted on slashdot to not pay the bills.
Nintendo is obviously concerned about the viral nature of GPL'ed code.Far as I know, the GPL can't be applied retroactively to the external platform the application is built on.
It ain't that viral ;)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453601</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453963</id>
	<title>No problem!</title>
	<author>smitty97</author>
	<datestamp>1245864180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari\_video\_game\_burial" title="wikipedia.org">There's a landfill for that! </a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a landfill for that !
[ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a landfill for that!
[wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453409</id>
	<title>I hope the wrong lesson isn't drawn...</title>
	<author>Dr. Manhattan</author>
	<datestamp>1245862260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Companies <i>do</i> have to be careful how they use GPL code, sure. But the real lesson here is that companies have to be <i>much</i> more careful about who their <i>subcontractors</i> are!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Companies do have to be careful how they use GPL code , sure .
But the real lesson here is that companies have to be much more careful about who their subcontractors are !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Companies do have to be careful how they use GPL code, sure.
But the real lesson here is that companies have to be much more careful about who their subcontractors are!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28456845</id>
	<title>Re:Wow</title>
	<author>Goldberg's Pants</author>
	<datestamp>1245874260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So when an Apple SDK agreement leads to something bad, it's all "fuck Apple" and all that in the tags. Why no "fuck Nintendo"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So when an Apple SDK agreement leads to something bad , it 's all " fuck Apple " and all that in the tags .
Why no " fuck Nintendo " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So when an Apple SDK agreement leads to something bad, it's all "fuck Apple" and all that in the tags.
Why no "fuck Nintendo"?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453381</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453445</id>
	<title>Re:Wow</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245862380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nintendo wants to prevent leakage of information about the Wii hardware that people can use to hack the machine.  Of course, the Wii has already been throughly hacked and so it's just corporate doublethink to pretend it hasn't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nintendo wants to prevent leakage of information about the Wii hardware that people can use to hack the machine .
Of course , the Wii has already been throughly hacked and so it 's just corporate doublethink to pretend it has n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nintendo wants to prevent leakage of information about the Wii hardware that people can use to hack the machine.
Of course, the Wii has already been throughly hacked and so it's just corporate doublethink to pretend it hasn't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453381</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28456747</id>
	<title>Re:Wow</title>
	<author>HAKdragon</author>
	<datestamp>1245873900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I'm sure they'll cry themselves to sleep at night at the loss of your purchase.</i> </p><blockquote><div><p>Jay: [contemptuous] How do you sleep at night?<br>Rainier: On top of a pile of money with many beautiful ladies.</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure they 'll cry themselves to sleep at night at the loss of your purchase .
Jay : [ contemptuous ] How do you sleep at night ? Rainier : On top of a pile of money with many beautiful ladies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure they'll cry themselves to sleep at night at the loss of your purchase.
Jay: [contemptuous] How do you sleep at night?Rainier: On top of a pile of money with many beautiful ladies.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453575</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28462515</id>
	<title>Re:Stable door status: open.</title>
	<author>jonwil</author>
	<datestamp>1245861180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wrong.<br>There is a specific exemption in the GPLv2 (which is what the ScummVM code in question is licensed under) that allows linking with code that comes with the OS and compiler. And the Nintendo SDK stuff clearly meets that definition</p><p>The ONLY reason Nintendo doesn't want GPL code on the Wii is that the code itself (i.e. the GPL game code and not the Nintendo APIs) would reveal information about the hardware, SDK and APIs on the Wii that Nintendo doesn't want released.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wrong.There is a specific exemption in the GPLv2 ( which is what the ScummVM code in question is licensed under ) that allows linking with code that comes with the OS and compiler .
And the Nintendo SDK stuff clearly meets that definitionThe ONLY reason Nintendo does n't want GPL code on the Wii is that the code itself ( i.e .
the GPL game code and not the Nintendo APIs ) would reveal information about the hardware , SDK and APIs on the Wii that Nintendo does n't want released .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wrong.There is a specific exemption in the GPLv2 (which is what the ScummVM code in question is licensed under) that allows linking with code that comes with the OS and compiler.
And the Nintendo SDK stuff clearly meets that definitionThe ONLY reason Nintendo doesn't want GPL code on the Wii is that the code itself (i.e.
the GPL game code and not the Nintendo APIs) would reveal information about the hardware, SDK and APIs on the Wii that Nintendo doesn't want released.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453557</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28455641</id>
	<title>Re:It's only copyright</title>
	<author>Tetsujin</author>
	<datestamp>1245869760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Based on what people posted for the Jammie Thomas $1.92 million settlement article, opinions will likely be divided into these different viewpoints:</p><p>1. Atari should pay 3x the retail cost of the GPL code.  3 x $0 = $0<br>2. It's only copyright which should be abolished anyways, no harm no foul<br>3. Code wants to be free, man... why is the GPL holding it back?</p><p>What's more likely is this response: OMG!  GPL was violated!  String Atari up by their balls!!11!!1!  The GPL is sacred and must not be blasphemed like this.  Grab your torches and pitchforks... we're going on a witch hunt!</p></div><p>Lovely to see such a glob of cynicism and general bad-attitude get modded "insightful".  "Everyone here is a spaz and will automatically go out of their way to be offended!"  +5 insightful!  Blah.</p><p>Really, the whole thing just seems like an unfortunate mess brought on by the unscrupulous (or careless?) practices of one of the subcontractors working on the project.  I feel bad for Atari in this position - they funded this release and now they need to essentially pull it, all because Mistic software decided to take a little shortcut.</p><p>You may or may not agree with the GPL, but the fact is that the ScummVM team has put in years of development and testing on that project - they published their code and declared the terms under which it could be used.  Mistic should have known what the terms of ScummVM were and known it wasn't suitable for what they were hired to do.  They screwed up and almost certainly cost Atari a lot of money as a result.  One would hope this would make others think twice before contracting their services in the future.</p><p>It is a bit unfortunate that this kind of thing reinforces the idea that the GPL is a "trap"...  It's true to a certain extent, with any published, copyrighted code, that there's a legal danger that someone (like a developer) will use that code without being clear about the legal implications of doing so...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Based on what people posted for the Jammie Thomas $ 1.92 million settlement article , opinions will likely be divided into these different viewpoints : 1 .
Atari should pay 3x the retail cost of the GPL code .
3 x $ 0 = $ 02 .
It 's only copyright which should be abolished anyways , no harm no foul3 .
Code wants to be free , man... why is the GPL holding it back ? What 's more likely is this response : OMG !
GPL was violated !
String Atari up by their balls ! ! 11 ! ! 1 !
The GPL is sacred and must not be blasphemed like this .
Grab your torches and pitchforks... we 're going on a witch hunt ! Lovely to see such a glob of cynicism and general bad-attitude get modded " insightful " .
" Everyone here is a spaz and will automatically go out of their way to be offended !
" + 5 insightful !
Blah.Really , the whole thing just seems like an unfortunate mess brought on by the unscrupulous ( or careless ?
) practices of one of the subcontractors working on the project .
I feel bad for Atari in this position - they funded this release and now they need to essentially pull it , all because Mistic software decided to take a little shortcut.You may or may not agree with the GPL , but the fact is that the ScummVM team has put in years of development and testing on that project - they published their code and declared the terms under which it could be used .
Mistic should have known what the terms of ScummVM were and known it was n't suitable for what they were hired to do .
They screwed up and almost certainly cost Atari a lot of money as a result .
One would hope this would make others think twice before contracting their services in the future.It is a bit unfortunate that this kind of thing reinforces the idea that the GPL is a " trap " ... It 's true to a certain extent , with any published , copyrighted code , that there 's a legal danger that someone ( like a developer ) will use that code without being clear about the legal implications of doing so.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Based on what people posted for the Jammie Thomas $1.92 million settlement article, opinions will likely be divided into these different viewpoints:1.
Atari should pay 3x the retail cost of the GPL code.
3 x $0 = $02.
It's only copyright which should be abolished anyways, no harm no foul3.
Code wants to be free, man... why is the GPL holding it back?What's more likely is this response: OMG!
GPL was violated!
String Atari up by their balls!!11!!1!
The GPL is sacred and must not be blasphemed like this.
Grab your torches and pitchforks... we're going on a witch hunt!Lovely to see such a glob of cynicism and general bad-attitude get modded "insightful".
"Everyone here is a spaz and will automatically go out of their way to be offended!
"  +5 insightful!
Blah.Really, the whole thing just seems like an unfortunate mess brought on by the unscrupulous (or careless?
) practices of one of the subcontractors working on the project.
I feel bad for Atari in this position - they funded this release and now they need to essentially pull it, all because Mistic software decided to take a little shortcut.You may or may not agree with the GPL, but the fact is that the ScummVM team has put in years of development and testing on that project - they published their code and declared the terms under which it could be used.
Mistic should have known what the terms of ScummVM were and known it wasn't suitable for what they were hired to do.
They screwed up and almost certainly cost Atari a lot of money as a result.
One would hope this would make others think twice before contracting their services in the future.It is a bit unfortunate that this kind of thing reinforces the idea that the GPL is a "trap"...  It's true to a certain extent, with any published, copyrighted code, that there's a legal danger that someone (like a developer) will use that code without being clear about the legal implications of doing so...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453411</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453557</id>
	<title>Stable door status: open.</title>
	<author>julesh</author>
	<datestamp>1245862740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Horse status: bolted.<br>Would you like me to close the stable door?</p><p>(Obviously, the reason for nintendo refusing to distribute open source software on their platform is that it may also \_requires\_ them to distribute a toolchain for the platform, including signing keys etc as required to get code to run.  Anyone who has already purchased one of these games, or who receives a copy from someone who has, has the right to demand this now.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Horse status : bolted.Would you like me to close the stable door ?
( Obviously , the reason for nintendo refusing to distribute open source software on their platform is that it may also \ _requires \ _ them to distribute a toolchain for the platform , including signing keys etc as required to get code to run .
Anyone who has already purchased one of these games , or who receives a copy from someone who has , has the right to demand this now .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Horse status: bolted.Would you like me to close the stable door?
(Obviously, the reason for nintendo refusing to distribute open source software on their platform is that it may also \_requires\_ them to distribute a toolchain for the platform, including signing keys etc as required to get code to run.
Anyone who has already purchased one of these games, or who receives a copy from someone who has, has the right to demand this now.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28454941</id>
	<title>Re:I'm sure I'm not alone...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245867540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Get something straight, Majesco messed up Psychonauts, Double Fine made it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Get something straight , Majesco messed up Psychonauts , Double Fine made it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Get something straight, Majesco messed up Psychonauts, Double Fine made it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453463</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28462529</id>
	<title>Re:At least one Wii game uses opensource</title>
	<author>jonwil</author>
	<datestamp>1245861300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nintendo doesn't ban open source, they ban giving any source code that runs on the Wii (regardless of the license its given under) to someone without a signed Wii SDK NDA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nintendo does n't ban open source , they ban giving any source code that runs on the Wii ( regardless of the license its given under ) to someone without a signed Wii SDK NDA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nintendo doesn't ban open source, they ban giving any source code that runs on the Wii (regardless of the license its given under) to someone without a signed Wii SDK NDA.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28454429</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28454037</id>
	<title>Re:I hope the wrong lesson isn't drawn...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245864420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's an example of someone who never learns from past mistakes:</p><p><a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-Housing/idUSTRE55L39120090622" title="reuters.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-Housing/idUSTRE55L39120090622</a> [reuters.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's an example of someone who never learns from past mistakes : http : //www.reuters.com/article/GCA-Housing/idUSTRE55L39120090622 [ reuters.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's an example of someone who never learns from past mistakes:http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-Housing/idUSTRE55L39120090622 [reuters.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453409</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28464041</id>
	<title>Re:Wrong Choice of License?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245922860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"ScummVM developers are as disinterested in the copyleft aspects of the GPL as they seem to be, then they should be looking at relicensing ScummVM under a more permissive license, which would avoid these kinds of snafus. If you just want attribution, it's much easier to just ask for that then to get in these boondoggles of asking for the code and tools too."</p><p>You need to read TFA: http://sev-notes.blogspot.com/2009/06/gpl-scummvm-and-violations.html</p><p>They're not disinterested in the copyleft aspects of the GPL.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ScummVM developers are as disinterested in the copyleft aspects of the GPL as they seem to be , then they should be looking at relicensing ScummVM under a more permissive license , which would avoid these kinds of snafus .
If you just want attribution , it 's much easier to just ask for that then to get in these boondoggles of asking for the code and tools too .
" You need to read TFA : http : //sev-notes.blogspot.com/2009/06/gpl-scummvm-and-violations.htmlThey 're not disinterested in the copyleft aspects of the GPL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"ScummVM developers are as disinterested in the copyleft aspects of the GPL as they seem to be, then they should be looking at relicensing ScummVM under a more permissive license, which would avoid these kinds of snafus.
If you just want attribution, it's much easier to just ask for that then to get in these boondoggles of asking for the code and tools too.
"You need to read TFA: http://sev-notes.blogspot.com/2009/06/gpl-scummvm-and-violations.htmlThey're not disinterested in the copyleft aspects of the GPL.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28456905</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453411</id>
	<title>It's only copyright</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245862260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Based on what people posted for the Jammie Thomas $1.92 million settlement article, opinions will likely be divided into these different viewpoints:</p><p>1. Atari should pay 3x the retail cost of the GPL code.  3 x $0 = $0<br>2. It's only copyright which should be abolished anyways, no harm no foul<br>3. Code wants to be free, man... why is the GPL holding it back?</p><p>What's more likely is this response: OMG!  GPL was violated!  String Atari up by their balls!!11!!1!  The GPL is sacred and must not be blasphemed like this.  Grab your torches and pitchforks... we're going on a witch hunt!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Based on what people posted for the Jammie Thomas $ 1.92 million settlement article , opinions will likely be divided into these different viewpoints : 1 .
Atari should pay 3x the retail cost of the GPL code .
3 x $ 0 = $ 02 .
It 's only copyright which should be abolished anyways , no harm no foul3 .
Code wants to be free , man... why is the GPL holding it back ? What 's more likely is this response : OMG !
GPL was violated !
String Atari up by their balls ! ! 11 ! ! 1 !
The GPL is sacred and must not be blasphemed like this .
Grab your torches and pitchforks... we 're going on a witch hunt !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Based on what people posted for the Jammie Thomas $1.92 million settlement article, opinions will likely be divided into these different viewpoints:1.
Atari should pay 3x the retail cost of the GPL code.
3 x $0 = $02.
It's only copyright which should be abolished anyways, no harm no foul3.
Code wants to be free, man... why is the GPL holding it back?What's more likely is this response: OMG!
GPL was violated!
String Atari up by their balls!!11!!1!
The GPL is sacred and must not be blasphemed like this.
Grab your torches and pitchforks... we're going on a witch hunt!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453913</id>
	<title>Re:It's only copyright</title>
	<author>julesh</author>
	<datestamp>1245864060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Based on what people posted for the Jammie Thomas $1.92 million settlement article, opinions will likely be divided into these different viewpoints:</i></p><p><i>1. Atari should pay 3x the retail cost of the GPL code. 3 x $0 = $0</i></p><p>Actually, the retail cost of GPL code is "you give us your source code changes back, including a way of building the software and making it run".  I think the ScummVM authors would be more than happy with just 1x this.</p><p><i>2. It's only copyright which should be abolished anyways, no harm no foul</i></p><p>This is a fringe opinion on slashdot, held by maybe 1\% of users.  A lot of us would argue for shorter copyright terms, but few for an absolute abolition.</p><p><i>3. Code wants to be free, man... why is the GPL holding it back?</i></p><p>The code that isn't free is the modified version of ScummVM that runs on the Wii.  A lot of would like to have a hold of that, for many reasons.  We really want it to be free.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Based on what people posted for the Jammie Thomas $ 1.92 million settlement article , opinions will likely be divided into these different viewpoints : 1 .
Atari should pay 3x the retail cost of the GPL code .
3 x $ 0 = $ 0Actually , the retail cost of GPL code is " you give us your source code changes back , including a way of building the software and making it run " .
I think the ScummVM authors would be more than happy with just 1x this.2 .
It 's only copyright which should be abolished anyways , no harm no foulThis is a fringe opinion on slashdot , held by maybe 1 \ % of users .
A lot of us would argue for shorter copyright terms , but few for an absolute abolition.3 .
Code wants to be free , man... why is the GPL holding it back ? The code that is n't free is the modified version of ScummVM that runs on the Wii .
A lot of would like to have a hold of that , for many reasons .
We really want it to be free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Based on what people posted for the Jammie Thomas $1.92 million settlement article, opinions will likely be divided into these different viewpoints:1.
Atari should pay 3x the retail cost of the GPL code.
3 x $0 = $0Actually, the retail cost of GPL code is "you give us your source code changes back, including a way of building the software and making it run".
I think the ScummVM authors would be more than happy with just 1x this.2.
It's only copyright which should be abolished anyways, no harm no foulThis is a fringe opinion on slashdot, held by maybe 1\% of users.
A lot of us would argue for shorter copyright terms, but few for an absolute abolition.3.
Code wants to be free, man... why is the GPL holding it back?The code that isn't free is the modified version of ScummVM that runs on the Wii.
A lot of would like to have a hold of that, for many reasons.
We really want it to be free.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453411</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28454517</id>
	<title>Re:Wow</title>
	<author>shentino</author>
	<datestamp>1245866040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Even end user monkeys that don't do squat for development are contributing just the same.<br><br>Ever heard of beta testing?  Bug reports?  Performance reviews?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even end user monkeys that do n't do squat for development are contributing just the same.Ever heard of beta testing ?
Bug reports ?
Performance reviews ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even end user monkeys that don't do squat for development are contributing just the same.Ever heard of beta testing?
Bug reports?
Performance reviews?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453601</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28454149</id>
	<title>Re:GPL Grey Area</title>
	<author>GryMor</author>
	<datestamp>1245864840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The meta problem is that they are letting Atari get away with it, without actually complying with the GPL due to interference of a third party. Any code produced by Mistic either as a modification to or linked with the ScummVM should have been released to satisfy the interests of those who have already purchased the software in question. I understand that the tool chain and libraries provided by Nintendo aren't theirs to release, and that failing would still lead to an ongoing GPL violation, necessitating the cessation of sales/distribution of the software, but to the extent the source code is/was owned by Sony/Mistic, incorporates a GPLed work and is distributed, it should have been released.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The meta problem is that they are letting Atari get away with it , without actually complying with the GPL due to interference of a third party .
Any code produced by Mistic either as a modification to or linked with the ScummVM should have been released to satisfy the interests of those who have already purchased the software in question .
I understand that the tool chain and libraries provided by Nintendo are n't theirs to release , and that failing would still lead to an ongoing GPL violation , necessitating the cessation of sales/distribution of the software , but to the extent the source code is/was owned by Sony/Mistic , incorporates a GPLed work and is distributed , it should have been released .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The meta problem is that they are letting Atari get away with it, without actually complying with the GPL due to interference of a third party.
Any code produced by Mistic either as a modification to or linked with the ScummVM should have been released to satisfy the interests of those who have already purchased the software in question.
I understand that the tool chain and libraries provided by Nintendo aren't theirs to release, and that failing would still lead to an ongoing GPL violation, necessitating the cessation of sales/distribution of the software, but to the extent the source code is/was owned by Sony/Mistic, incorporates a GPLed work and is distributed, it should have been released.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453649</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453687</id>
	<title>Re:Stable door status: open.</title>
	<author>Richard\_at\_work</author>
	<datestamp>1245863220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>They can demand it, but is an unknowing party subject to the license or simply required to cease distribution when informed?  It would be difficult to legally force Nintendo to provide anything in this circumstance...</htmltext>
<tokenext>They can demand it , but is an unknowing party subject to the license or simply required to cease distribution when informed ?
It would be difficult to legally force Nintendo to provide anything in this circumstance.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They can demand it, but is an unknowing party subject to the license or simply required to cease distribution when informed?
It would be difficult to legally force Nintendo to provide anything in this circumstance...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453557</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28462809</id>
	<title>Re:Wrong Choice of License?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245864600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> If the ScummVM developers are as disinterested in the copyleft aspects of the GPL as they seem to be,</p></div><p>From where did you get that impression?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the ScummVM developers are as disinterested in the copyleft aspects of the GPL as they seem to be,From where did you get that impression ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> If the ScummVM developers are as disinterested in the copyleft aspects of the GPL as they seem to be,From where did you get that impression?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28456905</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453903</id>
	<title>Re:It's only copyright</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245863940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good point, but slashbot moderators have buried you.  I often wonder why some people on Slashdot seem to think the GPL is the only valid use of copyright.  The bottom line is: it should be up to the creator whether or not they give their work out for free.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good point , but slashbot moderators have buried you .
I often wonder why some people on Slashdot seem to think the GPL is the only valid use of copyright .
The bottom line is : it should be up to the creator whether or not they give their work out for free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good point, but slashbot moderators have buried you.
I often wonder why some people on Slashdot seem to think the GPL is the only valid use of copyright.
The bottom line is: it should be up to the creator whether or not they give their work out for free.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453411</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28461469</id>
	<title>Re:Wow</title>
	<author>Jaysyn</author>
	<datestamp>1245853020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not a developer, but I've turned a metric fuck-ton of normal people onto useful open source projects &amp; fun open source games.  When I fix a friend or co-worker's wrecked (inevitably Windows-running) PC &amp; they get that PC back it is loaded down with open source apps like Paint.Net, OpenOffice, Firefox, Miranda &amp; Thunderbird as well as games like Battle for Wesnoth, Alien Arena, Decker, Slash'Em &amp; Frozen Bubble.  Without folks like me that will take the time &amp; work with people, one-on-one &amp; usually for free, your Open Source developers will never reach most normal folk.  They don't even think to look for it.</p><p>Oh, &amp; I do put my money where my mouth is &amp; if I find out a company I deal with is antagonistic to OSS, I stop patronizing that company when at all possible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not a developer , but I 've turned a metric fuck-ton of normal people onto useful open source projects &amp; fun open source games .
When I fix a friend or co-worker 's wrecked ( inevitably Windows-running ) PC &amp; they get that PC back it is loaded down with open source apps like Paint.Net , OpenOffice , Firefox , Miranda &amp; Thunderbird as well as games like Battle for Wesnoth , Alien Arena , Decker , Slash'Em &amp; Frozen Bubble .
Without folks like me that will take the time &amp; work with people , one-on-one &amp; usually for free , your Open Source developers will never reach most normal folk .
They do n't even think to look for it.Oh , &amp; I do put my money where my mouth is &amp; if I find out a company I deal with is antagonistic to OSS , I stop patronizing that company when at all possible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not a developer, but I've turned a metric fuck-ton of normal people onto useful open source projects &amp; fun open source games.
When I fix a friend or co-worker's wrecked (inevitably Windows-running) PC &amp; they get that PC back it is loaded down with open source apps like Paint.Net, OpenOffice, Firefox, Miranda &amp; Thunderbird as well as games like Battle for Wesnoth, Alien Arena, Decker, Slash'Em &amp; Frozen Bubble.
Without folks like me that will take the time &amp; work with people, one-on-one &amp; usually for free, your Open Source developers will never reach most normal folk.
They don't even think to look for it.Oh, &amp; I do put my money where my mouth is &amp; if I find out a company I deal with is antagonistic to OSS, I stop patronizing that company when at all possible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453601</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453463</id>
	<title>I'm sure I'm not alone...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245862440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm certain I'm not alone when I say "Way to go, nintendo".</p><p>I know why they did it, there has been a constant worry from closed-source developers that the GPL would force closed source code open. Nintendo is just covering their ass.</p><p>Of course, Majesco made Psychonaughts, so the idea of booting their content off of a console for any reason sounds like a suicidal path.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm certain I 'm not alone when I say " Way to go , nintendo " .I know why they did it , there has been a constant worry from closed-source developers that the GPL would force closed source code open .
Nintendo is just covering their ass.Of course , Majesco made Psychonaughts , so the idea of booting their content off of a console for any reason sounds like a suicidal path .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm certain I'm not alone when I say "Way to go, nintendo".I know why they did it, there has been a constant worry from closed-source developers that the GPL would force closed source code open.
Nintendo is just covering their ass.Of course, Majesco made Psychonaughts, so the idea of booting their content off of a console for any reason sounds like a suicidal path.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28455333</id>
	<title>GPL 3</title>
	<author>Midnight Thunder</author>
	<datestamp>1245868800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>That's not really the point. The point is SCUMM must have been ported to the Wii platform. This process will have included adding a step to its build process that signs it with a key authorised to run on the Wii. Under the GPL terms, this \_must\_ be released along with the rest of the source code.</i></p><p>I believe this requirement is only present in GPL v3.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's not really the point .
The point is SCUMM must have been ported to the Wii platform .
This process will have included adding a step to its build process that signs it with a key authorised to run on the Wii .
Under the GPL terms , this \ _must \ _ be released along with the rest of the source code.I believe this requirement is only present in GPL v3 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's not really the point.
The point is SCUMM must have been ported to the Wii platform.
This process will have included adding a step to its build process that signs it with a key authorised to run on the Wii.
Under the GPL terms, this \_must\_ be released along with the rest of the source code.I believe this requirement is only present in GPL v3.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453833</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28456489</id>
	<title>Re:Stable door status: open.</title>
	<author>Hork\_Monkey</author>
	<datestamp>1245872820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Anyone who has already purchased one of these games, or who receives a copy from someone who has, has the right to demand this now.</i>
<br> <br>
Not exactly.  The best you could get is a refund, as they could not legally sell you the game due to copyright/GPL violation.  Ownership/licensing is pretty hairy, as there are multiple organizations that own different parts of the code.   You as an end user who purchased the game don't have the right to use or even possess it...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone who has already purchased one of these games , or who receives a copy from someone who has , has the right to demand this now .
Not exactly .
The best you could get is a refund , as they could not legally sell you the game due to copyright/GPL violation .
Ownership/licensing is pretty hairy , as there are multiple organizations that own different parts of the code .
You as an end user who purchased the game do n't have the right to use or even possess it.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone who has already purchased one of these games, or who receives a copy from someone who has, has the right to demand this now.
Not exactly.
The best you could get is a refund, as they could not legally sell you the game due to copyright/GPL violation.
Ownership/licensing is pretty hairy, as there are multiple organizations that own different parts of the code.
You as an end user who purchased the game don't have the right to use or even possess it...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453557</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28454101</id>
	<title>Re:Stable door status: open.</title>
	<author>lukas84</author>
	<datestamp>1245864600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They might be able to force Atari to give out their key. Which Nintendo would probably blacklist - problem solved.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They might be able to force Atari to give out their key .
Which Nintendo would probably blacklist - problem solved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They might be able to force Atari to give out their key.
Which Nintendo would probably blacklist - problem solved.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453687</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28454455</id>
	<title>Re:Stable door status: open.</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1245865800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is only true of the GPLv3.  There are a large number of other Free and Open Source Software licenses which do not make this requirement.  The GPLv2, for example, does not.  This is generally known as the Tivo loophole, since they were among the first to notice it.  A Tivo includes the Linux kernel, and they comply with the GPL by releasing all of their modifications, but their bootloader will only run signed kernels.  </p><p>
There is no reason for Nintendo to ban any open source licenses.  Third party developers are not able to use GPLv3 code because they are not allowed to distribute the signing key and so can't comply with the GPLv3 irrespective of whether Nintendo explicitly forbids them.  Other licenses have no such problems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is only true of the GPLv3 .
There are a large number of other Free and Open Source Software licenses which do not make this requirement .
The GPLv2 , for example , does not .
This is generally known as the Tivo loophole , since they were among the first to notice it .
A Tivo includes the Linux kernel , and they comply with the GPL by releasing all of their modifications , but their bootloader will only run signed kernels .
There is no reason for Nintendo to ban any open source licenses .
Third party developers are not able to use GPLv3 code because they are not allowed to distribute the signing key and so ca n't comply with the GPLv3 irrespective of whether Nintendo explicitly forbids them .
Other licenses have no such problems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is only true of the GPLv3.
There are a large number of other Free and Open Source Software licenses which do not make this requirement.
The GPLv2, for example, does not.
This is generally known as the Tivo loophole, since they were among the first to notice it.
A Tivo includes the Linux kernel, and they comply with the GPL by releasing all of their modifications, but their bootloader will only run signed kernels.
There is no reason for Nintendo to ban any open source licenses.
Third party developers are not able to use GPLv3 code because they are not allowed to distribute the signing key and so can't comply with the GPLv3 irrespective of whether Nintendo explicitly forbids them.
Other licenses have no such problems.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453557</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453961</id>
	<title>Re:Nintendo's provision is not unusual</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245864180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On the other hand, I have Yellow Dog Linux and several open source emulators running on my PS3 at home all without even voiding the warranty, and Sony isn't exactly known for their openness.  Hell, if I'm being honest it's probably even costing them money, I've been playing old school games for the past few of months and haven't bought a single new game in that time.  But, come next generation, having the ability to instal Linux and run whatever software I want is going to be a major selling point for me.  Assuming Sony keeps it up, they'll have my business again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On the other hand , I have Yellow Dog Linux and several open source emulators running on my PS3 at home all without even voiding the warranty , and Sony is n't exactly known for their openness .
Hell , if I 'm being honest it 's probably even costing them money , I 've been playing old school games for the past few of months and have n't bought a single new game in that time .
But , come next generation , having the ability to instal Linux and run whatever software I want is going to be a major selling point for me .
Assuming Sony keeps it up , they 'll have my business again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the other hand, I have Yellow Dog Linux and several open source emulators running on my PS3 at home all without even voiding the warranty, and Sony isn't exactly known for their openness.
Hell, if I'm being honest it's probably even costing them money, I've been playing old school games for the past few of months and haven't bought a single new game in that time.
But, come next generation, having the ability to instal Linux and run whatever software I want is going to be a major selling point for me.
Assuming Sony keeps it up, they'll have my business again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453483</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28454829</id>
	<title>I'm confused</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245867120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Okay, so is Slashdot for or against copyright today?  You guys rant every day about copyright law, but then when somebody disregards the copyright license that benefits <em>you</em>, suddenly there are "violations."  If copyright law is evil and wrong, then the GPL has no legal standing, and people can do whatever they want with your code.</p><p>Are you suddenly finding out what it feels like to have your rights violated as a content owner?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay , so is Slashdot for or against copyright today ?
You guys rant every day about copyright law , but then when somebody disregards the copyright license that benefits you , suddenly there are " violations .
" If copyright law is evil and wrong , then the GPL has no legal standing , and people can do whatever they want with your code.Are you suddenly finding out what it feels like to have your rights violated as a content owner ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Okay, so is Slashdot for or against copyright today?
You guys rant every day about copyright law, but then when somebody disregards the copyright license that benefits you, suddenly there are "violations.
"  If copyright law is evil and wrong, then the GPL has no legal standing, and people can do whatever they want with your code.Are you suddenly finding out what it feels like to have your rights violated as a content owner?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453417</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453601</id>
	<title>Re:Wow</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245862800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Nintendo literally hates open source.  Guess I'll skip that DSi.</p></div><p>Not that I care if people by the DSi or not but I have to ask you three questions. 1. Are you a developer? 2. Are you involved in any open source project in any other capacity than an end user? 3. How would being friendly or not to open source change anything given that games are typically not downloaded but rather come on a physical product for the DS?
</p><p>
Are you one of those open source fanboys who does not even contribute a single penny to any project but still feel it important to voice your righteous indignation? If this is true, then your words are hollow as the very act of downloading an open source product without contributing back towards their development/hosting through either donations or ad revenue means that you are siphoning off what little funding they have in bandwidth costs.
</p><p>
Words posted on slashdot to not pay the bills. Nintendo is obviously concerned about the viral nature of GPL'ed code.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nintendo literally hates open source .
Guess I 'll skip that DSi.Not that I care if people by the DSi or not but I have to ask you three questions .
1. Are you a developer ?
2. Are you involved in any open source project in any other capacity than an end user ?
3. How would being friendly or not to open source change anything given that games are typically not downloaded but rather come on a physical product for the DS ?
Are you one of those open source fanboys who does not even contribute a single penny to any project but still feel it important to voice your righteous indignation ?
If this is true , then your words are hollow as the very act of downloading an open source product without contributing back towards their development/hosting through either donations or ad revenue means that you are siphoning off what little funding they have in bandwidth costs .
Words posted on slashdot to not pay the bills .
Nintendo is obviously concerned about the viral nature of GPL'ed code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nintendo literally hates open source.
Guess I'll skip that DSi.Not that I care if people by the DSi or not but I have to ask you three questions.
1. Are you a developer?
2. Are you involved in any open source project in any other capacity than an end user?
3. How would being friendly or not to open source change anything given that games are typically not downloaded but rather come on a physical product for the DS?
Are you one of those open source fanboys who does not even contribute a single penny to any project but still feel it important to voice your righteous indignation?
If this is true, then your words are hollow as the very act of downloading an open source product without contributing back towards their development/hosting through either donations or ad revenue means that you are siphoning off what little funding they have in bandwidth costs.
Words posted on slashdot to not pay the bills.
Nintendo is obviously concerned about the viral nature of GPL'ed code.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453381</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453377</id>
	<title>Only effects Seaquest and Submarine Commander</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245862140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The tank-sub-contractors used a different technology.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The tank-sub-contractors used a different technology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The tank-sub-contractors used a different technology.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28461201</id>
	<title>Re:Wrong Choice of License?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245850680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They say they cannot relicense. Probably, someone who had worked on the project and died or went away, or maybe they used GNU code, and thus blocked the code from relicensing.</p><p>When SCUMMVM started most people didn't know anything about Open Source and if they did they only knew about the GPL(yet nothing about its evil implications). Everybody was writing his own GNUthis and Gthat even when it did not make sense at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They say they can not relicense .
Probably , someone who had worked on the project and died or went away , or maybe they used GNU code , and thus blocked the code from relicensing.When SCUMMVM started most people did n't know anything about Open Source and if they did they only knew about the GPL ( yet nothing about its evil implications ) .
Everybody was writing his own GNUthis and Gthat even when it did not make sense at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They say they cannot relicense.
Probably, someone who had worked on the project and died or went away, or maybe they used GNU code, and thus blocked the code from relicensing.When SCUMMVM started most people didn't know anything about Open Source and if they did they only knew about the GPL(yet nothing about its evil implications).
Everybody was writing his own GNUthis and Gthat even when it did not make sense at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28456905</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28454245</id>
	<title>Re:I hope the wrong lesson isn't drawn...</title>
	<author>jonbryce</author>
	<datestamp>1245865140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This isn't a problem specific to GPL code.  If you are selling software, you have to make sure none of the code in your program is plagarised, regardless of the licence such plagarised code might be available under.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is n't a problem specific to GPL code .
If you are selling software , you have to make sure none of the code in your program is plagarised , regardless of the licence such plagarised code might be available under .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This isn't a problem specific to GPL code.
If you are selling software, you have to make sure none of the code in your program is plagarised, regardless of the licence such plagarised code might be available under.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453409</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453911</id>
	<title>Re:I hope the wrong lesson isn't drawn...</title>
	<author>DMKrow</author>
	<datestamp>1245864000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>To be more correct, companies need to be careful how they use external code.  GPL is unfairly picked on; when violating the terms of use for any code (free or commercial) is a bad move.
How can they dissallow open source?  That has to be a mistake, I doubt that the Wii SDK is devoid of any BSD/Apache/whatever source.</htmltext>
<tokenext>To be more correct , companies need to be careful how they use external code .
GPL is unfairly picked on ; when violating the terms of use for any code ( free or commercial ) is a bad move .
How can they dissallow open source ?
That has to be a mistake , I doubt that the Wii SDK is devoid of any BSD/Apache/whatever source .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To be more correct, companies need to be careful how they use external code.
GPL is unfairly picked on; when violating the terms of use for any code (free or commercial) is a bad move.
How can they dissallow open source?
That has to be a mistake, I doubt that the Wii SDK is devoid of any BSD/Apache/whatever source.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453409</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28454673</id>
	<title>Re:It's only copyright</title>
	<author>i.r.id10t</author>
	<datestamp>1245866580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Releasing the compile or whatever to run the code isn't required - it is just the code that is required.</p><p>Otherwise I could buy a license for Redhat or Novell for zOS (or use Debian's port to the s390, etc) and "they" (RH, Novell, Debian) would need to give me an IBM mainframe since that is the only way I could run the code?</p><p>So where's my free mainframe?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Releasing the compile or whatever to run the code is n't required - it is just the code that is required.Otherwise I could buy a license for Redhat or Novell for zOS ( or use Debian 's port to the s390 , etc ) and " they " ( RH , Novell , Debian ) would need to give me an IBM mainframe since that is the only way I could run the code ? So where 's my free mainframe ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Releasing the compile or whatever to run the code isn't required - it is just the code that is required.Otherwise I could buy a license for Redhat or Novell for zOS (or use Debian's port to the s390, etc) and "they" (RH, Novell, Debian) would need to give me an IBM mainframe since that is the only way I could run the code?So where's my free mainframe?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453913</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453649</id>
	<title>Re:GPL Grey Area</title>
	<author>MBCook</author>
	<datestamp>1245863040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem, from my readings of the story and associated stuff, seems to be that ScummVM was ported to the Wii (or at least to the official Nintendo APIs), but didn't release the changes. That's probably a GPL violation.</p><p>The <i>really</i> big issue from the initial complaint was not that ScummVM was being used (they seem rather happy about that), but that it was used without credit or attribution. That's a clear GPL violation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem , from my readings of the story and associated stuff , seems to be that ScummVM was ported to the Wii ( or at least to the official Nintendo APIs ) , but did n't release the changes .
That 's probably a GPL violation.The really big issue from the initial complaint was not that ScummVM was being used ( they seem rather happy about that ) , but that it was used without credit or attribution .
That 's a clear GPL violation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem, from my readings of the story and associated stuff, seems to be that ScummVM was ported to the Wii (or at least to the official Nintendo APIs), but didn't release the changes.
That's probably a GPL violation.The really big issue from the initial complaint was not that ScummVM was being used (they seem rather happy about that), but that it was used without credit or attribution.
That's a clear GPL violation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453529</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28455657</id>
	<title>Re:Nintendo's provision is not unusual</title>
	<author>El\_Muerte\_TDS</author>
	<datestamp>1245869760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Open Source != Free Software != GPL</p><p>Banning Open Source does also ban Free Software and thereby anything released under the GPL, but it bans also much more. Everything with a BSD license is considered Open Source, everything with a zlib/libpng license is considered Open Source. A lot of stuff is Open Source but can legally be included with close source applications.</p><p>Everybody, including Microsoft, uses the zlib library. I doubt there's a single vendor that sells a zlib-like library. Unless you cannot use C code there is absolutely no use to reinvent a perfectly running wheel. So, if Nintendo bans all Open Source, then I think there are a lot of developers violating that clause.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Open Source ! = Free Software ! = GPLBanning Open Source does also ban Free Software and thereby anything released under the GPL , but it bans also much more .
Everything with a BSD license is considered Open Source , everything with a zlib/libpng license is considered Open Source .
A lot of stuff is Open Source but can legally be included with close source applications.Everybody , including Microsoft , uses the zlib library .
I doubt there 's a single vendor that sells a zlib-like library .
Unless you can not use C code there is absolutely no use to reinvent a perfectly running wheel .
So , if Nintendo bans all Open Source , then I think there are a lot of developers violating that clause .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Open Source != Free Software != GPLBanning Open Source does also ban Free Software and thereby anything released under the GPL, but it bans also much more.
Everything with a BSD license is considered Open Source, everything with a zlib/libpng license is considered Open Source.
A lot of stuff is Open Source but can legally be included with close source applications.Everybody, including Microsoft, uses the zlib library.
I doubt there's a single vendor that sells a zlib-like library.
Unless you cannot use C code there is absolutely no use to reinvent a perfectly running wheel.
So, if Nintendo bans all Open Source, then I think there are a lot of developers violating that clause.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453483</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28461761</id>
	<title>Re:It's only copyright</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245855300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We are not here to punish individuals over copyright.  No, we are here to punish corporations (which are not people) over copyright.  This corporation violated the copyright of ScummVM, and so thus must pay.  Your item 1 is incorrect.  You posted "1. Atari should pay 3x the retail cost of the GPL code. 3 x $0 = $0".  This is incorrect.  The retail cost estimated to create RedHat Linux 6 (about 8 years ago) was well over 1 billion dollars (if you had to pay people to recreate it).  Its all GPL, but because you can get it for free doesn't mean its worthless.  The rest of your arguments fail as your initial premise is flawed.  Nintendo can fess up and post the code (like Linksys had to, as well as many many others), or face years of hell.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We are not here to punish individuals over copyright .
No , we are here to punish corporations ( which are not people ) over copyright .
This corporation violated the copyright of ScummVM , and so thus must pay .
Your item 1 is incorrect .
You posted " 1 .
Atari should pay 3x the retail cost of the GPL code .
3 x $ 0 = $ 0 " .
This is incorrect .
The retail cost estimated to create RedHat Linux 6 ( about 8 years ago ) was well over 1 billion dollars ( if you had to pay people to recreate it ) .
Its all GPL , but because you can get it for free does n't mean its worthless .
The rest of your arguments fail as your initial premise is flawed .
Nintendo can fess up and post the code ( like Linksys had to , as well as many many others ) , or face years of hell .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We are not here to punish individuals over copyright.
No, we are here to punish corporations (which are not people) over copyright.
This corporation violated the copyright of ScummVM, and so thus must pay.
Your item 1 is incorrect.
You posted "1.
Atari should pay 3x the retail cost of the GPL code.
3 x $0 = $0".
This is incorrect.
The retail cost estimated to create RedHat Linux 6 (about 8 years ago) was well over 1 billion dollars (if you had to pay people to recreate it).
Its all GPL, but because you can get it for free doesn't mean its worthless.
The rest of your arguments fail as your initial premise is flawed.
Nintendo can fess up and post the code (like Linksys had to, as well as many many others), or face years of hell.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453411</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28455827</id>
	<title>Here's a lesson</title>
	<author>xant</author>
	<datestamp>1245870240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You don't encourage game development by using NDAs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't encourage game development by using NDAs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't encourage game development by using NDAs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453409</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453461</id>
	<title>I can't believe it.</title>
	<author>djdavetrouble</author>
	<datestamp>1245862440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They are total SCUMM</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They are total SCUMM</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are total SCUMM</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28455731</id>
	<title>Re:It's only copyright</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245869940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You make it sound like it's a bad thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You make it sound like it 's a bad thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You make it sound like it's a bad thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453411</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28456905</id>
	<title>Wrong Choice of License?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245874620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After reading TFA, I get the impression that besides the GPL violations, the choice of license for ScummVM is itself an issue. The ScummVM developers seem to have no specific interest in getting the code back, rather they just want to be credited for their work on ScummVM and are proud of the fact that it was used in a commercial title. Accordingly, it strikes me that ScummVM was wrapped in entirely the wrong license.</p><p>This seems like a textbook case for using the MIT license or some other non-copyleft license where the authors are attributed, but the code isn't forced open. You see this on other projects like LUA or the Vorbis reference decoder, where they are commonly used in commercial games with great success, including Wii games. If the ScummVM developers are as disinterested in the copyleft aspects of the GPL as they seem to be, then they should be looking at relicensing ScummVM under a more permissive license, which would avoid these kinds of snafus. If you just want attribution, it's much easier to just ask for that then to get in these boondoggles of asking for the code and tools too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After reading TFA , I get the impression that besides the GPL violations , the choice of license for ScummVM is itself an issue .
The ScummVM developers seem to have no specific interest in getting the code back , rather they just want to be credited for their work on ScummVM and are proud of the fact that it was used in a commercial title .
Accordingly , it strikes me that ScummVM was wrapped in entirely the wrong license.This seems like a textbook case for using the MIT license or some other non-copyleft license where the authors are attributed , but the code is n't forced open .
You see this on other projects like LUA or the Vorbis reference decoder , where they are commonly used in commercial games with great success , including Wii games .
If the ScummVM developers are as disinterested in the copyleft aspects of the GPL as they seem to be , then they should be looking at relicensing ScummVM under a more permissive license , which would avoid these kinds of snafus .
If you just want attribution , it 's much easier to just ask for that then to get in these boondoggles of asking for the code and tools too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After reading TFA, I get the impression that besides the GPL violations, the choice of license for ScummVM is itself an issue.
The ScummVM developers seem to have no specific interest in getting the code back, rather they just want to be credited for their work on ScummVM and are proud of the fact that it was used in a commercial title.
Accordingly, it strikes me that ScummVM was wrapped in entirely the wrong license.This seems like a textbook case for using the MIT license or some other non-copyleft license where the authors are attributed, but the code isn't forced open.
You see this on other projects like LUA or the Vorbis reference decoder, where they are commonly used in commercial games with great success, including Wii games.
If the ScummVM developers are as disinterested in the copyleft aspects of the GPL as they seem to be, then they should be looking at relicensing ScummVM under a more permissive license, which would avoid these kinds of snafus.
If you just want attribution, it's much easier to just ask for that then to get in these boondoggles of asking for the code and tools too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28468475</id>
	<title>Re:Wrong Choice of License?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245953700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It isn't possible for them to re-licence at this point, as is normal for these sort of projects, there are many developers, some of whom are no longer contactable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is n't possible for them to re-licence at this point , as is normal for these sort of projects , there are many developers , some of whom are no longer contactable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It isn't possible for them to re-licence at this point, as is normal for these sort of projects, there are many developers, some of whom are no longer contactable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28456905</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453483</id>
	<title>Nintendo's provision is not unusual</title>
	<author>bzzfzz</author>
	<datestamp>1245862500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Provisions prohibiting open source software are not unusual in development and distribution agreements for closed systems.  There are similar provisions for all gaming platforms, for example, and for signed drivers for Windows.  On the other hand, paid licenses for third-party libraries are fine as long as there is no requirement to release source code.</p><p>Something to think about if you believe the playing field is level.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Provisions prohibiting open source software are not unusual in development and distribution agreements for closed systems .
There are similar provisions for all gaming platforms , for example , and for signed drivers for Windows .
On the other hand , paid licenses for third-party libraries are fine as long as there is no requirement to release source code.Something to think about if you believe the playing field is level .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Provisions prohibiting open source software are not unusual in development and distribution agreements for closed systems.
There are similar provisions for all gaming platforms, for example, and for signed drivers for Windows.
On the other hand, paid licenses for third-party libraries are fine as long as there is no requirement to release source code.Something to think about if you believe the playing field is level.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28454389</id>
	<title>Re:GPL Grey Area</title>
	<author>tonyreadsnews</author>
	<datestamp>1245865560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But wouldn't that only matter if they were planning to distribute the ported ScummVM, and not the application built with it? Or is there an integral part included in the application from the ScummVM?<p>
I mean, no-one complains that Windows has to be open sourced if a c++ compiler is ported from linux to windows and software built on that tool to run on windows. I believe, even in that case that software built with the GPLed tool can be closed source (not a derivation of the GPLed software but a work made with it).
</p><p>
Or am I missing something?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But would n't that only matter if they were planning to distribute the ported ScummVM , and not the application built with it ?
Or is there an integral part included in the application from the ScummVM ?
I mean , no-one complains that Windows has to be open sourced if a c + + compiler is ported from linux to windows and software built on that tool to run on windows .
I believe , even in that case that software built with the GPLed tool can be closed source ( not a derivation of the GPLed software but a work made with it ) .
Or am I missing something ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But wouldn't that only matter if they were planning to distribute the ported ScummVM, and not the application built with it?
Or is there an integral part included in the application from the ScummVM?
I mean, no-one complains that Windows has to be open sourced if a c++ compiler is ported from linux to windows and software built on that tool to run on windows.
I believe, even in that case that software built with the GPLed tool can be closed source (not a derivation of the GPLed software but a work made with it).
Or am I missing something?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453649</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28454977</id>
	<title>Re:GPL Grey Area</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245867660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Considering SCUMM is a virtual machine, wouldn't the files being interpreted by SCUMM be considered data rather than code?</p></div><p>To answer your totally irrelevant question, no, the code that runs in a VM is still considered code, thus can have it's own copyright license attached to it totally separate from the license on the emulator.</p><p>The point is that Atari, at fault of their contractors, was distributing code that they a) do not own the copyright on, and b) do not have permission from the copyright holder to distribute.</p><p>To further on B, the copyright holders did make an offer to Atari.  Atari could have chosen to be licensed under the GPL.  But they seem to have reason to not want to agree to the GPL license.  But that is the only option they were given, and they turned it down.<br>Thusly, they have no license to distribute the code they are distributing.</p><p>As much as most slashdotters disagree with copyright, the rest of the world hasn't been brought along to that same point yet and still uses it in law.<br>In the country Atari is in, there is president that if the game was worth $1, then the fines are $80000 per infraction.</p><p>It is quite possible the cost of violating copyright is less than the cost of both not doing business, and/or the result of passing the buck to Nintendo.<br>Businesses choose the cheapest bad option all the time.  "Don't do it" is usually always on the list, but it gets ranked too.  Sometimes breaking the law is a better option than not doing it in the first place.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Considering SCUMM is a virtual machine , would n't the files being interpreted by SCUMM be considered data rather than code ? To answer your totally irrelevant question , no , the code that runs in a VM is still considered code , thus can have it 's own copyright license attached to it totally separate from the license on the emulator.The point is that Atari , at fault of their contractors , was distributing code that they a ) do not own the copyright on , and b ) do not have permission from the copyright holder to distribute.To further on B , the copyright holders did make an offer to Atari .
Atari could have chosen to be licensed under the GPL .
But they seem to have reason to not want to agree to the GPL license .
But that is the only option they were given , and they turned it down.Thusly , they have no license to distribute the code they are distributing.As much as most slashdotters disagree with copyright , the rest of the world has n't been brought along to that same point yet and still uses it in law.In the country Atari is in , there is president that if the game was worth $ 1 , then the fines are $ 80000 per infraction.It is quite possible the cost of violating copyright is less than the cost of both not doing business , and/or the result of passing the buck to Nintendo.Businesses choose the cheapest bad option all the time .
" Do n't do it " is usually always on the list , but it gets ranked too .
Sometimes breaking the law is a better option than not doing it in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Considering SCUMM is a virtual machine, wouldn't the files being interpreted by SCUMM be considered data rather than code?To answer your totally irrelevant question, no, the code that runs in a VM is still considered code, thus can have it's own copyright license attached to it totally separate from the license on the emulator.The point is that Atari, at fault of their contractors, was distributing code that they a) do not own the copyright on, and b) do not have permission from the copyright holder to distribute.To further on B, the copyright holders did make an offer to Atari.
Atari could have chosen to be licensed under the GPL.
But they seem to have reason to not want to agree to the GPL license.
But that is the only option they were given, and they turned it down.Thusly, they have no license to distribute the code they are distributing.As much as most slashdotters disagree with copyright, the rest of the world hasn't been brought along to that same point yet and still uses it in law.In the country Atari is in, there is president that if the game was worth $1, then the fines are $80000 per infraction.It is quite possible the cost of violating copyright is less than the cost of both not doing business, and/or the result of passing the buck to Nintendo.Businesses choose the cheapest bad option all the time.
"Don't do it" is usually always on the list, but it gets ranked too.
Sometimes breaking the law is a better option than not doing it in the first place.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453529</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28455997</id>
	<title>Re:I'm sure I'm not alone...</title>
	<author>Tetsujin</author>
	<datestamp>1245870780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm certain I'm not alone when I say "Way to go, nintendo".</p><p>I know why they did it, there has been a constant worry from closed-source developers that the GPL would force closed source code open. Nintendo is just covering their ass.</p></div><p>That's not it, exactly.</p><p>The demands of the GPL would have only forced the code of the game engine itself to be opened - that is, the version of ScummVM modified to work on the Wii using the Wii SDK.  If the demands of the GPL license were incompatible with another agreement pertaining to the code, neither agreement would be <em>nullified</em> by this conflict - Atari would simply lose the ability to distribute the game.</p><p>So there's no way this could force <em>Nintendo</em> source code to be opened.  That isn't what Nintendo is defending themselves against here.</p><p>Rather, it sounds like Nintendo only releases the Wii SDK to developers under a non-disclosure agreement.  Under the terms of the agreement, I guess, publishing source code that uses SDK functions counts as <em>disclosure</em>.  If my understanding is correct, Nintendo isn't specifically targeting open source software here - they just don't want developers to disclose the SDK or information about it...  A requirement to publish source code would obviously conflict with that.  So some "open source" software would be fine (for instance, Python) in a Wii game, but anything GPL wouldn't be, due to that conflict.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm certain I 'm not alone when I say " Way to go , nintendo " .I know why they did it , there has been a constant worry from closed-source developers that the GPL would force closed source code open .
Nintendo is just covering their ass.That 's not it , exactly.The demands of the GPL would have only forced the code of the game engine itself to be opened - that is , the version of ScummVM modified to work on the Wii using the Wii SDK .
If the demands of the GPL license were incompatible with another agreement pertaining to the code , neither agreement would be nullified by this conflict - Atari would simply lose the ability to distribute the game.So there 's no way this could force Nintendo source code to be opened .
That is n't what Nintendo is defending themselves against here.Rather , it sounds like Nintendo only releases the Wii SDK to developers under a non-disclosure agreement .
Under the terms of the agreement , I guess , publishing source code that uses SDK functions counts as disclosure .
If my understanding is correct , Nintendo is n't specifically targeting open source software here - they just do n't want developers to disclose the SDK or information about it... A requirement to publish source code would obviously conflict with that .
So some " open source " software would be fine ( for instance , Python ) in a Wii game , but anything GPL would n't be , due to that conflict .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm certain I'm not alone when I say "Way to go, nintendo".I know why they did it, there has been a constant worry from closed-source developers that the GPL would force closed source code open.
Nintendo is just covering their ass.That's not it, exactly.The demands of the GPL would have only forced the code of the game engine itself to be opened - that is, the version of ScummVM modified to work on the Wii using the Wii SDK.
If the demands of the GPL license were incompatible with another agreement pertaining to the code, neither agreement would be nullified by this conflict - Atari would simply lose the ability to distribute the game.So there's no way this could force Nintendo source code to be opened.
That isn't what Nintendo is defending themselves against here.Rather, it sounds like Nintendo only releases the Wii SDK to developers under a non-disclosure agreement.
Under the terms of the agreement, I guess, publishing source code that uses SDK functions counts as disclosure.
If my understanding is correct, Nintendo isn't specifically targeting open source software here - they just don't want developers to disclose the SDK or information about it...  A requirement to publish source code would obviously conflict with that.
So some "open source" software would be fine (for instance, Python) in a Wii game, but anything GPL wouldn't be, due to that conflict.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453463</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28454757</id>
	<title>Don't tag this "story"...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245866880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...tag it "destory"!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...tag it " destory " !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...tag it "destory"!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28455965</id>
	<title>Re:It's only copyright</title>
	<author>bertoelcon</author>
	<datestamp>1245870600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is how it seems to me, copyrights are a good idea handled badly. The commercially operated copyrights are strictly enforced randomly (sounds really dumb), when a open form of copyright gets broken if would be assumed that there would be at least an equal amount of something, but there isn't. The only fix I see would be a complete overhaul, which would be a horrible idea right now with legal systems eating from commercially own copyrights pockets.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is how it seems to me , copyrights are a good idea handled badly .
The commercially operated copyrights are strictly enforced randomly ( sounds really dumb ) , when a open form of copyright gets broken if would be assumed that there would be at least an equal amount of something , but there is n't .
The only fix I see would be a complete overhaul , which would be a horrible idea right now with legal systems eating from commercially own copyrights pockets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is how it seems to me, copyrights are a good idea handled badly.
The commercially operated copyrights are strictly enforced randomly (sounds really dumb), when a open form of copyright gets broken if would be assumed that there would be at least an equal amount of something, but there isn't.
The only fix I see would be a complete overhaul, which would be a horrible idea right now with legal systems eating from commercially own copyrights pockets.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453411</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28462175</id>
	<title>Re:Subcontracting risks, not GPL is the story</title>
	<author>DeVilla</author>
	<datestamp>1245858360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That is true.  It could have been anyone's copyright being violated here.  GPL just happens to be the one in this case and it harder to get GPL software relicensed if there isn't a requirement to have copyright signed over to a single organization that can then authorize the relicensing.  Since the code has already been released, rewriting portions they cannot get permission for is not an option.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That is true .
It could have been anyone 's copyright being violated here .
GPL just happens to be the one in this case and it harder to get GPL software relicensed if there is n't a requirement to have copyright signed over to a single organization that can then authorize the relicensing .
Since the code has already been released , rewriting portions they can not get permission for is not an option .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is true.
It could have been anyone's copyright being violated here.
GPL just happens to be the one in this case and it harder to get GPL software relicensed if there isn't a requirement to have copyright signed over to a single organization that can then authorize the relicensing.
Since the code has already been released, rewriting portions they cannot get permission for is not an option.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28454295</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28458549</id>
	<title>Atari pirating software is nothing new.</title>
	<author>Ant P.</author>
	<datestamp>1245837300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I seem to remember a story a few months back where they distributed code taken from a PC game crack in an official update.</p><p>They obviously consider this sort of behaviour acceptable, so I expect they'll have no problem with people pirating <em>their</em> software en masse.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I seem to remember a story a few months back where they distributed code taken from a PC game crack in an official update.They obviously consider this sort of behaviour acceptable , so I expect they 'll have no problem with people pirating their software en masse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I seem to remember a story a few months back where they distributed code taken from a PC game crack in an official update.They obviously consider this sort of behaviour acceptable, so I expect they'll have no problem with people pirating their software en masse.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453725</id>
	<title>Nintendo NDA/Open Source and Wii SDK?</title>
	<author>xtracto</author>
	<datestamp>1245863340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am very curious on what is the reasoning behind Nintendo's forbidding the use of Open Source... i guess they want to protect their APIs or something.</p><p>I would love if any brave enough AC could post more of this info.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am very curious on what is the reasoning behind Nintendo 's forbidding the use of Open Source... i guess they want to protect their APIs or something.I would love if any brave enough AC could post more of this info .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am very curious on what is the reasoning behind Nintendo's forbidding the use of Open Source... i guess they want to protect their APIs or something.I would love if any brave enough AC could post more of this info.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453833</id>
	<title>Re:GPL Grey Area</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245863760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Considering SCUMM is a virtual machine, wouldn't the files being interpreted by SCUMM be considered data rather than code? I'm not aware of any terms in the GPL which require the authors of a data file that's read by GPL'd software to release that data under the terms of the GPL.</i></p><p>That's not really the point.  The point is SCUMM must have been ported to the Wii platform.  This process will have included adding a step to its build process that signs it with a key authorised to run on the Wii.  Under the GPL terms, this \_must\_ be released along with the rest of the source code.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Considering SCUMM is a virtual machine , would n't the files being interpreted by SCUMM be considered data rather than code ?
I 'm not aware of any terms in the GPL which require the authors of a data file that 's read by GPL 'd software to release that data under the terms of the GPL.That 's not really the point .
The point is SCUMM must have been ported to the Wii platform .
This process will have included adding a step to its build process that signs it with a key authorised to run on the Wii .
Under the GPL terms , this \ _must \ _ be released along with the rest of the source code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Considering SCUMM is a virtual machine, wouldn't the files being interpreted by SCUMM be considered data rather than code?
I'm not aware of any terms in the GPL which require the authors of a data file that's read by GPL'd software to release that data under the terms of the GPL.That's not really the point.
The point is SCUMM must have been ported to the Wii platform.
This process will have included adding a step to its build process that signs it with a key authorised to run on the Wii.
Under the GPL terms, this \_must\_ be released along with the rest of the source code.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453529</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28454873</id>
	<title>Re:Stable door status: open.</title>
	<author>blitzkrieg3</author>
	<datestamp>1245867360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Anyone who has already purchased one of these games, or who receives a copy from someone who has, has the right to demand this now.</p></div><p>Actually this is not correct.  The game was <em>not</em> distributed under the terms of the GPLv2, but rather was distributed illegally, by violating copyright.  As shown in the blog post above, the copyright holder tried to get Atari to release the game under the GPL, but they were unwilling.  The copyright holder then settled out of court for a nice contribution to the Free Software Foundation and a promise to destroy all remaining stock.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone who has already purchased one of these games , or who receives a copy from someone who has , has the right to demand this now.Actually this is not correct .
The game was not distributed under the terms of the GPLv2 , but rather was distributed illegally , by violating copyright .
As shown in the blog post above , the copyright holder tried to get Atari to release the game under the GPL , but they were unwilling .
The copyright holder then settled out of court for a nice contribution to the Free Software Foundation and a promise to destroy all remaining stock .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone who has already purchased one of these games, or who receives a copy from someone who has, has the right to demand this now.Actually this is not correct.
The game was not distributed under the terms of the GPLv2, but rather was distributed illegally, by violating copyright.
As shown in the blog post above, the copyright holder tried to get Atari to release the game under the GPL, but they were unwilling.
The copyright holder then settled out of court for a nice contribution to the Free Software Foundation and a promise to destroy all remaining stock.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453557</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28454481</id>
	<title>Re:It's only copyright</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245865920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>*laughing*</p><p>Wow.  That was a perfect example of the OP's statement.</p><p>It's almost as if you don't know that "the illicit uploading of 24 songs" and "the use of Eugene Sandulenko's work illegally" *both* make a complete mockery of a great deal of effort on the parts of both content creators.</p><p>Both are IP.  Both took effort to produce and yet for some reason, you don't seem to care at all about one while getting all riled up about the other.</p><p>Exactly the point the OP was trying to make.  Excellent example, geekboy!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>* laughing * Wow .
That was a perfect example of the OP 's statement.It 's almost as if you do n't know that " the illicit uploading of 24 songs " and " the use of Eugene Sandulenko 's work illegally " * both * make a complete mockery of a great deal of effort on the parts of both content creators.Both are IP .
Both took effort to produce and yet for some reason , you do n't seem to care at all about one while getting all riled up about the other.Exactly the point the OP was trying to make .
Excellent example , geekboy !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>*laughing*Wow.
That was a perfect example of the OP's statement.It's almost as if you don't know that "the illicit uploading of 24 songs" and "the use of Eugene Sandulenko's work illegally" *both* make a complete mockery of a great deal of effort on the parts of both content creators.Both are IP.
Both took effort to produce and yet for some reason, you don't seem to care at all about one while getting all riled up about the other.Exactly the point the OP was trying to make.
Excellent example, geekboy!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453981</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453923</id>
	<title>Re:GPL Grey Area</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245864060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The problem, from my readings of the story and associated stuff, seems to be that ScummVM was ported to the Wii (or at least to the official Nintendo APIs), but didn't release the changes. That's probably a GPL violation.</p><p>The really big issue from the initial complaint was not that ScummVM was being used (they seem rather happy about that), but that it was used without credit or attribution. That's a clear GPL violation.</p></div></blockquote><p>The fundamental problem that seems to be at work here that prevents a cure to the GPL breach is that the Nintendo software which is neither GPL nor released under a GPL-compatible license is linked in, which means that if they continued distributing the software and stopped violating the GPL, they'd be violating the license on the Wii SDK. (From TFS, it seems that they were violating the Wii SDK simply by using "open source" software with it, regardless of the terms of the open source license at issue, which is, if accurate, a rather odd provision.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem , from my readings of the story and associated stuff , seems to be that ScummVM was ported to the Wii ( or at least to the official Nintendo APIs ) , but did n't release the changes .
That 's probably a GPL violation.The really big issue from the initial complaint was not that ScummVM was being used ( they seem rather happy about that ) , but that it was used without credit or attribution .
That 's a clear GPL violation.The fundamental problem that seems to be at work here that prevents a cure to the GPL breach is that the Nintendo software which is neither GPL nor released under a GPL-compatible license is linked in , which means that if they continued distributing the software and stopped violating the GPL , they 'd be violating the license on the Wii SDK .
( From TFS , it seems that they were violating the Wii SDK simply by using " open source " software with it , regardless of the terms of the open source license at issue , which is , if accurate , a rather odd provision .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem, from my readings of the story and associated stuff, seems to be that ScummVM was ported to the Wii (or at least to the official Nintendo APIs), but didn't release the changes.
That's probably a GPL violation.The really big issue from the initial complaint was not that ScummVM was being used (they seem rather happy about that), but that it was used without credit or attribution.
That's a clear GPL violation.The fundamental problem that seems to be at work here that prevents a cure to the GPL breach is that the Nintendo software which is neither GPL nor released under a GPL-compatible license is linked in, which means that if they continued distributing the software and stopped violating the GPL, they'd be violating the license on the Wii SDK.
(From TFS, it seems that they were violating the Wii SDK simply by using "open source" software with it, regardless of the terms of the open source license at issue, which is, if accurate, a rather odd provision.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453649</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28462701</id>
	<title>Re:GPL Grey Area</title>
	<author>deek</author>
	<datestamp>1245863280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not necessarily.  The ScummVM software has to be ported to the Wii, that's certain.  Signing the compiled code does not necessarily have to be part of the build process.  Signing can be done after the build is complete, by another set of programs.  So the key is not required to be revealed by the GPL.</p><p>The \_real\_ issue here is that Nintendo refuse to allow open source software to be used with their development system.  This prevents Atari from ever compiling the ScummVM software in the first place.</p><p>If Nintendo did allow open source software, then Atari could release the ported ScummVM code, and the GPL would be happy (assuming required acknowledgements are in place as well).  Atari would not need to release the signing key, nor the game data, since ScummVM does not link to any of this information, and thus would be perfectly compilable.  The compiled code just wouldn't run on a non-hacked Wii, that's all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not necessarily .
The ScummVM software has to be ported to the Wii , that 's certain .
Signing the compiled code does not necessarily have to be part of the build process .
Signing can be done after the build is complete , by another set of programs .
So the key is not required to be revealed by the GPL.The \ _real \ _ issue here is that Nintendo refuse to allow open source software to be used with their development system .
This prevents Atari from ever compiling the ScummVM software in the first place.If Nintendo did allow open source software , then Atari could release the ported ScummVM code , and the GPL would be happy ( assuming required acknowledgements are in place as well ) .
Atari would not need to release the signing key , nor the game data , since ScummVM does not link to any of this information , and thus would be perfectly compilable .
The compiled code just would n't run on a non-hacked Wii , that 's all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not necessarily.
The ScummVM software has to be ported to the Wii, that's certain.
Signing the compiled code does not necessarily have to be part of the build process.
Signing can be done after the build is complete, by another set of programs.
So the key is not required to be revealed by the GPL.The \_real\_ issue here is that Nintendo refuse to allow open source software to be used with their development system.
This prevents Atari from ever compiling the ScummVM software in the first place.If Nintendo did allow open source software, then Atari could release the ported ScummVM code, and the GPL would be happy (assuming required acknowledgements are in place as well).
Atari would not need to release the signing key, nor the game data, since ScummVM does not link to any of this information, and thus would be perfectly compilable.
The compiled code just wouldn't run on a non-hacked Wii, that's all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453833</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1449254_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28456765
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453409
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1449254_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28462529
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28454429
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1449254_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28455641
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453411
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1449254_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28454629
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453417
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1449254_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28462809
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28456905
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1449254_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28455657
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453483
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1449254_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28455019
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28454183
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1449254_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28454455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453557
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1449254_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28455153
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28454429
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1449254_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28456845
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453381
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1449254_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28456489
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453557
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1449254_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28454101
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453687
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453557
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1449254_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28461007
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28456045
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1449254_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453911
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453409
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1449254_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28468475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28456905
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1449254_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28455965
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453411
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1449254_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28454831
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453961
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453483
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1449254_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28455997
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453463
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1449254_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28454673
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453913
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453411
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1449254_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28457591
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28454829
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453417
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1449254_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28461761
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453411
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1449254_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28454087
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453417
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1449254_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28456061
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28454481
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453981
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453411
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1449254_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28455731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453411
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1449254_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28454389
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453649
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453529
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1449254_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28454019
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453411
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1449254_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453903
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453411
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1449254_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28461469
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453601
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453381
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1449254_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28454245
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453409
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1449254_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28464041
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28456905
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1449254_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28454653
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453409
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1449254_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28454557
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453409
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1449254_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28454977
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453529
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1449254_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28454873
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453557
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1449254_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28455333
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453833
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453529
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1449254_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28462701
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453833
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453529
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1449254_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28455913
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453381
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1449254_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28462175
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28454295
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1449254_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28467733
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453411
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1449254_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453445
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453381
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1449254_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28454077
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453601
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453381
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1449254_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28455025
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453411
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1449254_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28454149
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453649
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453529
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1449254_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28456747
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453575
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453381
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1449254_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28461201
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28456905
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1449254_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453923
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453649
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453529
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1449254_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28465551
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453463
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1449254_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28454037
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453409
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1449254_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28462515
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453557
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1449254_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28455827
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453409
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1449254_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28454103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453601
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453381
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1449254_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28461137
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453411
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1449254_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28454869
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453601
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453381
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1449254_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28455467
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453409
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1449254_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28454517
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453601
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453381
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1449254_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28454155
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453557
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1449254_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28454941
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453463
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1449254_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453551
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453417
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1449254_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28463431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28456905
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_1449254.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28455397
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_1449254.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453463
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28454941
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28455997
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28465551
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_1449254.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28454295
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28462175
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_1449254.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453529
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453649
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28454389
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28454149
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453923
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453833
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28455333
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28462701
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28454977
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_1449254.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453409
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28454245
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28454557
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453911
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28455827
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28455467
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28454037
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28456765
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28454653
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_1449254.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453725
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_1449254.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453381
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453601
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28454077
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28454103
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28461469
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28454517
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28454869
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453445
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453575
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28456747
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28456845
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28455913
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_1449254.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453557
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28454155
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28454873
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28454455
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28462515
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28456489
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453687
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28454101
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_1449254.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453411
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28454019
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453903
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28461761
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28455731
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28455025
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453913
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28454673
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28455641
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28455965
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28467733
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453981
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28454481
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28456061
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28461137
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_1449254.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28456045
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28461007
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_1449254.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453483
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28455657
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453961
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28454831
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_1449254.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28454691
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_1449254.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28454183
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28455019
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_1449254.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28456905
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28461201
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28468475
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28464041
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28462809
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28463431
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_1449254.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453417
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28453551
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28454087
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28454629
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28454829
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28457591
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_1449254.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28454429
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28462529
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28455153
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_1449254.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1449254.28454007
</commentlist>
</conversation>
