<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_15_1549228</id>
	<title>Doubts Raised About Legal Soundness of GPL2</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1255624080000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>svonkie writes <i>"Two prominent IP lawyers have warned that the all-pervasive <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10/15/black\_duck\_gpl\_web\_conference\_copenhaver\_radcliffe/">General Public License version 2 (GPLv2) is legally unsound</a>. They claim GPLv3 and AGPLv3 are much better suited for the realities of modern open source software. 'If you go back in time to when GPLv2 was written, I don't think people were aware of just how ubiquitous this license would become and how closely scrutinized it would be,' said Mark Radcliffe, partner at the firm DLA Piper and general counsel for the Open Source Initiative (OSI). 'At that time, open source was not something as broadly used as it is now.' Radcliffe was joined by Karen Copenhaver, partner at Choate Hall &amp; Stewart and counsel for the Linux Foundation, for a GPL web conference hosted by the license-sniffing firm Black Duck software"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>svonkie writes " Two prominent IP lawyers have warned that the all-pervasive General Public License version 2 ( GPLv2 ) is legally unsound .
They claim GPLv3 and AGPLv3 are much better suited for the realities of modern open source software .
'If you go back in time to when GPLv2 was written , I do n't think people were aware of just how ubiquitous this license would become and how closely scrutinized it would be, ' said Mark Radcliffe , partner at the firm DLA Piper and general counsel for the Open Source Initiative ( OSI ) .
'At that time , open source was not something as broadly used as it is now .
' Radcliffe was joined by Karen Copenhaver , partner at Choate Hall &amp; Stewart and counsel for the Linux Foundation , for a GPL web conference hosted by the license-sniffing firm Black Duck software "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>svonkie writes "Two prominent IP lawyers have warned that the all-pervasive General Public License version 2 (GPLv2) is legally unsound.
They claim GPLv3 and AGPLv3 are much better suited for the realities of modern open source software.
'If you go back in time to when GPLv2 was written, I don't think people were aware of just how ubiquitous this license would become and how closely scrutinized it would be,' said Mark Radcliffe, partner at the firm DLA Piper and general counsel for the Open Source Initiative (OSI).
'At that time, open source was not something as broadly used as it is now.
' Radcliffe was joined by Karen Copenhaver, partner at Choate Hall &amp; Stewart and counsel for the Linux Foundation, for a GPL web conference hosted by the license-sniffing firm Black Duck software"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759295</id>
	<title>Re:Not as bad as it sounds!</title>
	<author>Just Some Guy</author>
	<datestamp>1255629900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's not like they've determined there's some fundimental legal principle which brings the whole thing crashing down, as you see in EULAs for example.</p></div><p>Right.  Which strikes me as interesting that they'd suggest "upgrading" from a distribution license (GPLv2) to a EULA (AGPLv3).  Remember, if you have an in-house branch of an AGPLv3 package, and you let a customer SSH in to run it, then you have to grant them full rights to your changes (even though you haven't distributed it).  I dig RMS and I love the GPL, but I hate that derivative abomination.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not like they 've determined there 's some fundimental legal principle which brings the whole thing crashing down , as you see in EULAs for example.Right .
Which strikes me as interesting that they 'd suggest " upgrading " from a distribution license ( GPLv2 ) to a EULA ( AGPLv3 ) .
Remember , if you have an in-house branch of an AGPLv3 package , and you let a customer SSH in to run it , then you have to grant them full rights to your changes ( even though you have n't distributed it ) .
I dig RMS and I love the GPL , but I hate that derivative abomination .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not like they've determined there's some fundimental legal principle which brings the whole thing crashing down, as you see in EULAs for example.Right.
Which strikes me as interesting that they'd suggest "upgrading" from a distribution license (GPLv2) to a EULA (AGPLv3).
Remember, if you have an in-house branch of an AGPLv3 package, and you let a customer SSH in to run it, then you have to grant them full rights to your changes (even though you haven't distributed it).
I dig RMS and I love the GPL, but I hate that derivative abomination.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29758873</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29758961</id>
	<title>And in other news....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255628460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hindsight is 20/20.</p><p>This argument can be made for most of what's written into law. Where's the news here??</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hindsight is 20/20.This argument can be made for most of what 's written into law .
Where 's the news here ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hindsight is 20/20.This argument can be made for most of what's written into law.
Where's the news here?
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29763837</id>
	<title>Crap summary</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255608060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good article</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good article</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good article</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29758915</id>
	<title>Conspiracy?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255628220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, I actually count myself among the few that like Richard Stallman. I've met him, and he's a nice guy. But does anyone recall the furor over GPLv3 when it first came out, &amp; some of the new provisions? This caused a lot of projects to stick with v2.</p><p>I'm wondering if this isn't just FUD to try to get people to switch to v3. Which is icky, but it did occur to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , I actually count myself among the few that like Richard Stallman .
I 've met him , and he 's a nice guy .
But does anyone recall the furor over GPLv3 when it first came out , &amp; some of the new provisions ?
This caused a lot of projects to stick with v2.I 'm wondering if this is n't just FUD to try to get people to switch to v3 .
Which is icky , but it did occur to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, I actually count myself among the few that like Richard Stallman.
I've met him, and he's a nice guy.
But does anyone recall the furor over GPLv3 when it first came out, &amp; some of the new provisions?
This caused a lot of projects to stick with v2.I'm wondering if this isn't just FUD to try to get people to switch to v3.
Which is icky, but it did occur to me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29760569</id>
	<title>lawyers fishing for work</title>
	<author>prgrmr</author>
	<datestamp>1255635420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>A lot of the supposed ambiguity can be eliminated if you first look at the code as not being computer programs, but just being another written work, then evaluate any potential "derivative works" from that perspective, and let existing copyright law and case law guide the evaluation.   Once you've done that, then look at the license-specific terms of the GPL regarding what it says constitutes distribution, as well as what it says triggers the requirement for distribution, and I think you'll find it's not nearly as convoluted as these two jokers are making it out to be.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A lot of the supposed ambiguity can be eliminated if you first look at the code as not being computer programs , but just being another written work , then evaluate any potential " derivative works " from that perspective , and let existing copyright law and case law guide the evaluation .
Once you 've done that , then look at the license-specific terms of the GPL regarding what it says constitutes distribution , as well as what it says triggers the requirement for distribution , and I think you 'll find it 's not nearly as convoluted as these two jokers are making it out to be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A lot of the supposed ambiguity can be eliminated if you first look at the code as not being computer programs, but just being another written work, then evaluate any potential "derivative works" from that perspective, and let existing copyright law and case law guide the evaluation.
Once you've done that, then look at the license-specific terms of the GPL regarding what it says constitutes distribution, as well as what it says triggers the requirement for distribution, and I think you'll find it's not nearly as convoluted as these two jokers are making it out to be.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29761697</id>
	<title>Re:Ideology?</title>
	<author>Eil</author>
	<datestamp>1255597920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Moreover, it is generally acknowledged that moving the Linux kernel to any other license (including GPLv2) is impossible on a practical level, since they would need the permission of every developer who has ever contributed code to the kernel. Unlike many open source projects, the author of a patch retains the copyright to his/her code rather than assigning it to the project's organization. You're talking about thousands upon thousands of developers, many of whom cannot even be tracked down.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Moreover , it is generally acknowledged that moving the Linux kernel to any other license ( including GPLv2 ) is impossible on a practical level , since they would need the permission of every developer who has ever contributed code to the kernel .
Unlike many open source projects , the author of a patch retains the copyright to his/her code rather than assigning it to the project 's organization .
You 're talking about thousands upon thousands of developers , many of whom can not even be tracked down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Moreover, it is generally acknowledged that moving the Linux kernel to any other license (including GPLv2) is impossible on a practical level, since they would need the permission of every developer who has ever contributed code to the kernel.
Unlike many open source projects, the author of a patch retains the copyright to his/her code rather than assigning it to the project's organization.
You're talking about thousands upon thousands of developers, many of whom cannot even be tracked down.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759209</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29758873</id>
	<title>Not as bad as it sounds!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255627980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The article essentially says that the terminology used needs more rigorous definition, and needs to match more closely with the existing legal terminology. For example, their use of "derivative work" might have legal connotations that don't completely follow from the terms of the licence. It's not like they've determined there's some fundimental legal principle which brings the whole thing crashing down, as you see in EULAs for example.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The article essentially says that the terminology used needs more rigorous definition , and needs to match more closely with the existing legal terminology .
For example , their use of " derivative work " might have legal connotations that do n't completely follow from the terms of the licence .
It 's not like they 've determined there 's some fundimental legal principle which brings the whole thing crashing down , as you see in EULAs for example .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article essentially says that the terminology used needs more rigorous definition, and needs to match more closely with the existing legal terminology.
For example, their use of "derivative work" might have legal connotations that don't completely follow from the terms of the licence.
It's not like they've determined there's some fundimental legal principle which brings the whole thing crashing down, as you see in EULAs for example.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29762287</id>
	<title>Re:real issue, but is GPLv3 the solution?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255600620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>    For instance, I wrote a physics textbook, which is open-source</p></div>
</blockquote><blockquote><div><p>No you didn't. I didn't compose an open source song, and that guy over there didn't make open source blueberry jam.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
I don't understand your point. It is open source. The source code is in latex format. Latex is a Turing-complete programming language, which people use as a format for writing documents. You can download the source code of my book <a href="http://www.lightandmatter.com/books.html" title="lightandmatter.com" rel="nofollow">here</a> [lightandmatter.com] (scroll down to the bottom of the page). The source code is under a copyleft license (CC-BY-SA). So I would say that that makes the book an open-source book by any reasonable definition of open source.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For instance , I wrote a physics textbook , which is open-source No you did n't .
I did n't compose an open source song , and that guy over there did n't make open source blueberry jam .
I do n't understand your point .
It is open source .
The source code is in latex format .
Latex is a Turing-complete programming language , which people use as a format for writing documents .
You can download the source code of my book here [ lightandmatter.com ] ( scroll down to the bottom of the page ) .
The source code is under a copyleft license ( CC-BY-SA ) .
So I would say that that makes the book an open-source book by any reasonable definition of open source .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>    For instance, I wrote a physics textbook, which is open-source
No you didn't.
I didn't compose an open source song, and that guy over there didn't make open source blueberry jam.
I don't understand your point.
It is open source.
The source code is in latex format.
Latex is a Turing-complete programming language, which people use as a format for writing documents.
You can download the source code of my book here [lightandmatter.com] (scroll down to the bottom of the page).
The source code is under a copyleft license (CC-BY-SA).
So I would say that that makes the book an open-source book by any reasonable definition of open source.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759629</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759889</id>
	<title>Re:real issue, but is GPLv3 the solution?</title>
	<author>Crispy Critters</author>
	<datestamp>1255632480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>A different license is not the answer.  Neither of you knew whether his book was a derivative work under copyright law.  Your license can't redefine the terms of copyright law, so no change in the wording of the CC would reduce the confusion.  This is the same problem with TFA.  Like the GPL, the CC licenses are grants of rights to be <b>added</b> to those rights we already receive under copyright law.  If they redefined terms, they would also potentially (attempt to) take away rights, which would make them very different beasts legally.  It would completely change the legal landscape.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A different license is not the answer .
Neither of you knew whether his book was a derivative work under copyright law .
Your license ca n't redefine the terms of copyright law , so no change in the wording of the CC would reduce the confusion .
This is the same problem with TFA .
Like the GPL , the CC licenses are grants of rights to be added to those rights we already receive under copyright law .
If they redefined terms , they would also potentially ( attempt to ) take away rights , which would make them very different beasts legally .
It would completely change the legal landscape .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A different license is not the answer.
Neither of you knew whether his book was a derivative work under copyright law.
Your license can't redefine the terms of copyright law, so no change in the wording of the CC would reduce the confusion.
This is the same problem with TFA.
Like the GPL, the CC licenses are grants of rights to be added to those rights we already receive under copyright law.
If they redefined terms, they would also potentially (attempt to) take away rights, which would make them very different beasts legally.
It would completely change the legal landscape.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759285</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29760843</id>
	<title>Re:real issue, but is GPLv3 the solution?</title>
	<author>radtea</author>
	<datestamp>1255636800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>On the other hand, there's really no perfect separation between the software and our books.</i></p><p>Any time you run into an argument that relies on this kind of "there's no perfect separation" argument you know you're in deep trouble, either because you're an idiot (probably not true in your case) or because you've found a genuine boardline case.</p><p>The idiot problem is more common, because nothing is perfectly separated from anything else, ever, and yet we deal with those cases just fine every single day.  There's no perfect separation between "inside" and "outside" when talking about a building, yet somehow most of us still managed to make our way from one to the other this morning.  There is no perfect separation between ocean and dry land, but no one ever has any difficulty using those concepts, because we've created a bunch of special concepts to deal with the borderline cases ("beach", "littoral", etc.)</p><p>If you hit on a case where it really matters that there's no perfect separation between two completely different things (the software and the book, in this case) you need to define some intermediate concepts that will let you understand better the relationship between them, and to deal intelligently with the region in which they overlap.  Unfortunately, it will take the legal community a few decades to do that, and in the meantime the best you can hope for is to not become a precedent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On the other hand , there 's really no perfect separation between the software and our books.Any time you run into an argument that relies on this kind of " there 's no perfect separation " argument you know you 're in deep trouble , either because you 're an idiot ( probably not true in your case ) or because you 've found a genuine boardline case.The idiot problem is more common , because nothing is perfectly separated from anything else , ever , and yet we deal with those cases just fine every single day .
There 's no perfect separation between " inside " and " outside " when talking about a building , yet somehow most of us still managed to make our way from one to the other this morning .
There is no perfect separation between ocean and dry land , but no one ever has any difficulty using those concepts , because we 've created a bunch of special concepts to deal with the borderline cases ( " beach " , " littoral " , etc .
) If you hit on a case where it really matters that there 's no perfect separation between two completely different things ( the software and the book , in this case ) you need to define some intermediate concepts that will let you understand better the relationship between them , and to deal intelligently with the region in which they overlap .
Unfortunately , it will take the legal community a few decades to do that , and in the meantime the best you can hope for is to not become a precedent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the other hand, there's really no perfect separation between the software and our books.Any time you run into an argument that relies on this kind of "there's no perfect separation" argument you know you're in deep trouble, either because you're an idiot (probably not true in your case) or because you've found a genuine boardline case.The idiot problem is more common, because nothing is perfectly separated from anything else, ever, and yet we deal with those cases just fine every single day.
There's no perfect separation between "inside" and "outside" when talking about a building, yet somehow most of us still managed to make our way from one to the other this morning.
There is no perfect separation between ocean and dry land, but no one ever has any difficulty using those concepts, because we've created a bunch of special concepts to deal with the borderline cases ("beach", "littoral", etc.
)If you hit on a case where it really matters that there's no perfect separation between two completely different things (the software and the book, in this case) you need to define some intermediate concepts that will let you understand better the relationship between them, and to deal intelligently with the region in which they overlap.
Unfortunately, it will take the legal community a few decades to do that, and in the meantime the best you can hope for is to not become a precedent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759285</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759393</id>
	<title>USA is not the whole world!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255630260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Attention yankee blockheads!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Attention yankee blockheads !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Attention yankee blockheads!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759079</id>
	<title>This is propaganda</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255628940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>These lawyers have some kind of agenda and should be kept out of the press.  The GPL has been applied in court (successfully) many times.</p><p>I assume the agenda is to promote the truly awful GPLv3 and spread FUD about the not-so-awful GPLv2 so people will feel forced to 'upgrade.'</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These lawyers have some kind of agenda and should be kept out of the press .
The GPL has been applied in court ( successfully ) many times.I assume the agenda is to promote the truly awful GPLv3 and spread FUD about the not-so-awful GPLv2 so people will feel forced to 'upgrade .
'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These lawyers have some kind of agenda and should be kept out of the press.
The GPL has been applied in court (successfully) many times.I assume the agenda is to promote the truly awful GPLv3 and spread FUD about the not-so-awful GPLv2 so people will feel forced to 'upgrade.
'</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759347</id>
	<title>Missing the Point</title>
	<author>vga\_init</author>
	<datestamp>1255630140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The point of the GPL was that it was very simple and broad-sweeping.  Naturally this does make it vulnerable to attack in the sense that the legal system might feel threatened by the massive impact of such a game-changing license; copyleft practically redefines IP law in a way that those in the legal institution (eg lawyers, judges, lawmakers, and the business interests that pay for them) don't acknowledge, understand, or otherwise feel comfortable with because they don't feel in control.  All it takes is a mere technicality to disqualify the GPL from functioning at all, and the Free Software community is justifiably anxious about that, but the GPL has been successfully upheld in court time and time again, so I wouldn't worry.</p><p>At this point there should be no doubt of the legal soundness of any version of the GPL, but it all boils down to a matter of principle.  If a society believes in Free Software, then the GPL's legal application is perfectly simple and valid.  To those hostile to freedom in the society, then the application of the GPL becomes something artificially difficult/problematic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The point of the GPL was that it was very simple and broad-sweeping .
Naturally this does make it vulnerable to attack in the sense that the legal system might feel threatened by the massive impact of such a game-changing license ; copyleft practically redefines IP law in a way that those in the legal institution ( eg lawyers , judges , lawmakers , and the business interests that pay for them ) do n't acknowledge , understand , or otherwise feel comfortable with because they do n't feel in control .
All it takes is a mere technicality to disqualify the GPL from functioning at all , and the Free Software community is justifiably anxious about that , but the GPL has been successfully upheld in court time and time again , so I would n't worry.At this point there should be no doubt of the legal soundness of any version of the GPL , but it all boils down to a matter of principle .
If a society believes in Free Software , then the GPL 's legal application is perfectly simple and valid .
To those hostile to freedom in the society , then the application of the GPL becomes something artificially difficult/problematic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The point of the GPL was that it was very simple and broad-sweeping.
Naturally this does make it vulnerable to attack in the sense that the legal system might feel threatened by the massive impact of such a game-changing license; copyleft practically redefines IP law in a way that those in the legal institution (eg lawyers, judges, lawmakers, and the business interests that pay for them) don't acknowledge, understand, or otherwise feel comfortable with because they don't feel in control.
All it takes is a mere technicality to disqualify the GPL from functioning at all, and the Free Software community is justifiably anxious about that, but the GPL has been successfully upheld in court time and time again, so I wouldn't worry.At this point there should be no doubt of the legal soundness of any version of the GPL, but it all boils down to a matter of principle.
If a society believes in Free Software, then the GPL's legal application is perfectly simple and valid.
To those hostile to freedom in the society, then the application of the GPL becomes something artificially difficult/problematic.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29761061</id>
	<title>Re:real issue, but is GPLv3 the solution?</title>
	<author>Attila Dimedici</author>
	<datestamp>1255637880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>
 Well, my answer ended up being that I really didn't know whether it was okay or not.

</p></div><p>How did you not know if it was "okay or not"? You don't know if it was your intention to prevent him from doing what he was doing? You may not know if he could legally do what he wanted to do without your permission, but you don't know if it is "okay" with you to do it?<br>
If you don't want him to use your work the way he intended, you should have told him that and then told him you weren't sure if you had any legal standing to stop him. If you don't mind him using your work that way, you should have told him as much and said that you would give him license to do so, if the existing license did not already do so.<br>
 It isn't as complicated as you make it out. It just sounds like you didn't want him to do what he wanted to do, but you didn't want to come out and say that without knowing you could legally enforce it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , my answer ended up being that I really did n't know whether it was okay or not .
How did you not know if it was " okay or not " ?
You do n't know if it was your intention to prevent him from doing what he was doing ?
You may not know if he could legally do what he wanted to do without your permission , but you do n't know if it is " okay " with you to do it ?
If you do n't want him to use your work the way he intended , you should have told him that and then told him you were n't sure if you had any legal standing to stop him .
If you do n't mind him using your work that way , you should have told him as much and said that you would give him license to do so , if the existing license did not already do so .
It is n't as complicated as you make it out .
It just sounds like you did n't want him to do what he wanted to do , but you did n't want to come out and say that without knowing you could legally enforce it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
 Well, my answer ended up being that I really didn't know whether it was okay or not.
How did you not know if it was "okay or not"?
You don't know if it was your intention to prevent him from doing what he was doing?
You may not know if he could legally do what he wanted to do without your permission, but you don't know if it is "okay" with you to do it?
If you don't want him to use your work the way he intended, you should have told him that and then told him you weren't sure if you had any legal standing to stop him.
If you don't mind him using your work that way, you should have told him as much and said that you would give him license to do so, if the existing license did not already do so.
It isn't as complicated as you make it out.
It just sounds like you didn't want him to do what he wanted to do, but you didn't want to come out and say that without knowing you could legally enforce it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759285</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29760191</id>
	<title>Saber Rattling</title>
	<author>hackus</author>
	<datestamp>1255633740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh I don't know....GPL V2 has been in and out of the court all over in Europe.</p><p>Most settle without a hitch.</p><p>Some, need to have it explained in front of a judge.</p><p>This guy doesn't know what he is talking about, and if the GPLv2 was unsound legally, it would have long been over turned.</p><p>GPLv2 even scares Microsoft's lawyers.</p><p>The guy just wants attention.</p><p>Send him a cookie.</p><p>-Hackus</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh I do n't know....GPL V2 has been in and out of the court all over in Europe.Most settle without a hitch.Some , need to have it explained in front of a judge.This guy does n't know what he is talking about , and if the GPLv2 was unsound legally , it would have long been over turned.GPLv2 even scares Microsoft 's lawyers.The guy just wants attention.Send him a cookie.-Hackus</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh I don't know....GPL V2 has been in and out of the court all over in Europe.Most settle without a hitch.Some, need to have it explained in front of a judge.This guy doesn't know what he is talking about, and if the GPLv2 was unsound legally, it would have long been over turned.GPLv2 even scares Microsoft's lawyers.The guy just wants attention.Send him a cookie.-Hackus</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29762683</id>
	<title>Re:"Derivative work"</title>
	<author>harlows\_monkeys</author>
	<datestamp>1255601940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The authors of the GPLv2 (i.e. RMS) clearly intended it to cover as much as possible: any and all works following under the statutory definition.</p></div></blockquote><p>They seem to want to cover more than that, as they claim things far beyond what copyright law considers to be a derivative work. For example, they have claimed that if there is a GPL and a non-GPL library that accomplishes some function with different interfaces, and you distribute source code with #ifdef directives to allow the person building the software to choose which library interface to use, then this source code is a derivative work of the GPL library, if and only if there is no non-GPL library that clones the GPL library interface.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The authors of the GPLv2 ( i.e .
RMS ) clearly intended it to cover as much as possible : any and all works following under the statutory definition.They seem to want to cover more than that , as they claim things far beyond what copyright law considers to be a derivative work .
For example , they have claimed that if there is a GPL and a non-GPL library that accomplishes some function with different interfaces , and you distribute source code with # ifdef directives to allow the person building the software to choose which library interface to use , then this source code is a derivative work of the GPL library , if and only if there is no non-GPL library that clones the GPL library interface .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The authors of the GPLv2 (i.e.
RMS) clearly intended it to cover as much as possible: any and all works following under the statutory definition.They seem to want to cover more than that, as they claim things far beyond what copyright law considers to be a derivative work.
For example, they have claimed that if there is a GPL and a non-GPL library that accomplishes some function with different interfaces, and you distribute source code with #ifdef directives to allow the person building the software to choose which library interface to use, then this source code is a derivative work of the GPL library, if and only if there is no non-GPL library that clones the GPL library interface.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759123</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29758869</id>
	<title>Zealots caught in Gnu/Stallmans trap</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255627980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now suck his GNU/Cock.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now suck his GNU/Cock .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now suck his GNU/Cock.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29760533</id>
	<title>Re:Not as bad as it sounds!</title>
	<author>Eivind Eklund</author>
	<datestamp>1255635120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Fair" vary from person to person.  The question I'm most interested in is "Is it efficient for your goals?"</p><p>There is one big loophole in all of these licenses, one the kill all of the code contribution: People can choose to use a different codebase to avoid the license.  If they use your codebase and make changes to it, there is a relatively large chance that they contribute back, because most changes are not critical to their business and it gets better community relations.  If they use somebody else's codebase (e.g, Microsoft's), there is no chance whatsoever they'll contribute back to you.</p><p>Eivind.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Fair " vary from person to person .
The question I 'm most interested in is " Is it efficient for your goals ?
" There is one big loophole in all of these licenses , one the kill all of the code contribution : People can choose to use a different codebase to avoid the license .
If they use your codebase and make changes to it , there is a relatively large chance that they contribute back , because most changes are not critical to their business and it gets better community relations .
If they use somebody else 's codebase ( e.g , Microsoft 's ) , there is no chance whatsoever they 'll contribute back to you.Eivind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Fair" vary from person to person.
The question I'm most interested in is "Is it efficient for your goals?
"There is one big loophole in all of these licenses, one the kill all of the code contribution: People can choose to use a different codebase to avoid the license.
If they use your codebase and make changes to it, there is a relatively large chance that they contribute back, because most changes are not critical to their business and it gets better community relations.
If they use somebody else's codebase (e.g, Microsoft's), there is no chance whatsoever they'll contribute back to you.Eivind.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759905</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759239</id>
	<title>To express GPLv2 ideology in GPLv3 framework</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255629600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How much of this is about nudging Linus... pushing him, really... into applying GPL 3 to the Linux kernel?</p></div><p>
That can't happen without a rewrite. Too much of Linux is composed of patches written by unreachable authors and whose copyrights haven't been assigned to Mr. Torvalds or the Linux Foundation.
</p><p>And even then, <a href="http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/9/25/161" title="lkml.org">Mr. Torvalds has stated that he prefers the spirit of GPLv2</a> [lkml.org] to that of GPLv3. I'm pretty sure that the spirit of GPLv2 can be expressed in the GPLv3 framework by adding a set of exceptions, much like the Classpath license and the LGPLv3 are sets of exceptions to GPLv3.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How much of this is about nudging Linus... pushing him , really... into applying GPL 3 to the Linux kernel ?
That ca n't happen without a rewrite .
Too much of Linux is composed of patches written by unreachable authors and whose copyrights have n't been assigned to Mr. Torvalds or the Linux Foundation .
And even then , Mr. Torvalds has stated that he prefers the spirit of GPLv2 [ lkml.org ] to that of GPLv3 .
I 'm pretty sure that the spirit of GPLv2 can be expressed in the GPLv3 framework by adding a set of exceptions , much like the Classpath license and the LGPLv3 are sets of exceptions to GPLv3 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How much of this is about nudging Linus... pushing him, really... into applying GPL 3 to the Linux kernel?
That can't happen without a rewrite.
Too much of Linux is composed of patches written by unreachable authors and whose copyrights haven't been assigned to Mr. Torvalds or the Linux Foundation.
And even then, Mr. Torvalds has stated that he prefers the spirit of GPLv2 [lkml.org] to that of GPLv3.
I'm pretty sure that the spirit of GPLv2 can be expressed in the GPLv3 framework by adding a set of exceptions, much like the Classpath license and the LGPLv3 are sets of exceptions to GPLv3.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759071</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29766885</id>
	<title>Re:real issue, but is GPLv3 the solution?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255690920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If this wasn't the case, then every picture ever made with the GIMP would be GPL'd!</p></div><p>What about a picture that incorporated bits of clipart from a GIMP-included collection that was under copyleft?  (I don't actually know whether such a collection of clipart exists.)  He did say that his program inserted some text directly into the output, which might be covered under copyright.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If this was n't the case , then every picture ever made with the GIMP would be GPL 'd ! What about a picture that incorporated bits of clipart from a GIMP-included collection that was under copyleft ?
( I do n't actually know whether such a collection of clipart exists .
) He did say that his program inserted some text directly into the output , which might be covered under copyright .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If this wasn't the case, then every picture ever made with the GIMP would be GPL'd!What about a picture that incorporated bits of clipart from a GIMP-included collection that was under copyleft?
(I don't actually know whether such a collection of clipart exists.
)  He did say that his program inserted some text directly into the output, which might be covered under copyright.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759953</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29760051</id>
	<title>Re:Every license is ambiguous</title>
	<author>spitzak</author>
	<datestamp>1255633140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>a judge will make you release the source</i></p><p>This is absolutely false and a huge piece of FUD from Microsoft, and the basis of the "viral" claim for the GPL.</p><p>A judge will find you have violated copyright, and place the legal penalty for copyright violations on you, which is that monetary compensation be paid to the copyright owner and that you cease distribution.</p><p>It is true that you can often avoid going before a judge by agreeing to some demand of the copyright holder, which <i>might</i> be "release your source code". But the demand could be <i>anything</i>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>a judge will make you release the sourceThis is absolutely false and a huge piece of FUD from Microsoft , and the basis of the " viral " claim for the GPL.A judge will find you have violated copyright , and place the legal penalty for copyright violations on you , which is that monetary compensation be paid to the copyright owner and that you cease distribution.It is true that you can often avoid going before a judge by agreeing to some demand of the copyright holder , which might be " release your source code " .
But the demand could be anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a judge will make you release the sourceThis is absolutely false and a huge piece of FUD from Microsoft, and the basis of the "viral" claim for the GPL.A judge will find you have violated copyright, and place the legal penalty for copyright violations on you, which is that monetary compensation be paid to the copyright owner and that you cease distribution.It is true that you can often avoid going before a judge by agreeing to some demand of the copyright holder, which might be "release your source code".
But the demand could be anything.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29758953</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29760785</id>
	<title>Re:Not as bad as it sounds!</title>
	<author>Attila Dimedici</author>
	<datestamp>1255636500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you don't think that's fair I'd be interested to hear why not.</p></div><p>I don't care if its "fair". Life isn't fair, never has been, never will be, get used to it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you do n't think that 's fair I 'd be interested to hear why not.I do n't care if its " fair " .
Life is n't fair , never has been , never will be , get used to it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you don't think that's fair I'd be interested to hear why not.I don't care if its "fair".
Life isn't fair, never has been, never will be, get used to it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759905</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759783</id>
	<title>Re:Conspiracy?</title>
	<author>CarpetShark</author>
	<datestamp>1255632000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>So, I actually count myself among the few that like Richard Stallman.</p></div></blockquote><p>I think/hope you mean among the non-vocal majority who actually like him<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)  Stallman has done a HELL OF A LOT for the IT industry, and ethical/free software in general.  Lately there seems to be a vocal group out to generate hate towards him, but I like to think his record still more than negates their pitiful smear campaign.</p><p>That said...</p><blockquote><div><p>I've met him, and he's a nice guy.</p></div></blockquote><p>lol.  We must have met different people.  I like what Stallman's done, but trying to have a conversation with him was like trying to swap stories with the loudspeakers at a rock concert --- I mostly just felt like my ears were bleeding and I had to get away<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , I actually count myself among the few that like Richard Stallman.I think/hope you mean among the non-vocal majority who actually like him : ) Stallman has done a HELL OF A LOT for the IT industry , and ethical/free software in general .
Lately there seems to be a vocal group out to generate hate towards him , but I like to think his record still more than negates their pitiful smear campaign.That said...I 've met him , and he 's a nice guy.lol .
We must have met different people .
I like what Stallman 's done , but trying to have a conversation with him was like trying to swap stories with the loudspeakers at a rock concert --- I mostly just felt like my ears were bleeding and I had to get away ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, I actually count myself among the few that like Richard Stallman.I think/hope you mean among the non-vocal majority who actually like him :)  Stallman has done a HELL OF A LOT for the IT industry, and ethical/free software in general.
Lately there seems to be a vocal group out to generate hate towards him, but I like to think his record still more than negates their pitiful smear campaign.That said...I've met him, and he's a nice guy.lol.
We must have met different people.
I like what Stallman's done, but trying to have a conversation with him was like trying to swap stories with the loudspeakers at a rock concert --- I mostly just felt like my ears were bleeding and I had to get away ;)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29758915</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29760153</id>
	<title>Re:"Derivative work"</title>
	<author>spitzak</author>
	<datestamp>1255633560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is kind of wrong. The GPL2/3 both have quite a lot of language excluding stuff that people might consider covered by copyright laws. The most obvious is the "mere aggregation" clause, but also stuff about "code commonly included with the OS" and lots of other stuff.</p><p>Therefore it is pretty clear that the GPL2/3 is NOT "intended to cover as much as possible". If it was then no such language would be included.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is kind of wrong .
The GPL2/3 both have quite a lot of language excluding stuff that people might consider covered by copyright laws .
The most obvious is the " mere aggregation " clause , but also stuff about " code commonly included with the OS " and lots of other stuff.Therefore it is pretty clear that the GPL2/3 is NOT " intended to cover as much as possible " .
If it was then no such language would be included .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is kind of wrong.
The GPL2/3 both have quite a lot of language excluding stuff that people might consider covered by copyright laws.
The most obvious is the "mere aggregation" clause, but also stuff about "code commonly included with the OS" and lots of other stuff.Therefore it is pretty clear that the GPL2/3 is NOT "intended to cover as much as possible".
If it was then no such language would be included.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759123</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29760697</id>
	<title>Re:real issue, but is GPLv3 the solution?</title>
	<author>Kjella</author>
	<datestamp>1255636080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>No open source licence of any kind has ever put restrictions on the output of a program or of code.</p></div><p>Unless the application's code becomes part of the output, like for example the GCC runtime license exception. If it's being used as a tool ON the work to change image placement, then the final placement isn't covered. But if he's distributing a derived version OF the image placement code in his latex code, I would consider that a derivative.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No open source licence of any kind has ever put restrictions on the output of a program or of code.Unless the application 's code becomes part of the output , like for example the GCC runtime license exception .
If it 's being used as a tool ON the work to change image placement , then the final placement is n't covered .
But if he 's distributing a derived version OF the image placement code in his latex code , I would consider that a derivative .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No open source licence of any kind has ever put restrictions on the output of a program or of code.Unless the application's code becomes part of the output, like for example the GCC runtime license exception.
If it's being used as a tool ON the work to change image placement, then the final placement isn't covered.
But if he's distributing a derived version OF the image placement code in his latex code, I would consider that a derivative.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759953</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29761783</id>
	<title>Re:real issue, but is GPLv3 the solution?</title>
	<author>LaminatorX</author>
	<datestamp>1255598340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The root of the confusion is that you have different works jumbled together: </p><ol> <li>The text, graphics, and organization of your book.</li><li>The page design and layout of your finished output</li><li>The Ruby code and laTex extensions used to render your book into a PDF</li></ol><p>If you had licensed them separately, the situation would have been clearer. The downstream author would need to grant you attribution for and share-alike any designs and layouts based off of yours, and any modifications to your code (assuming you use a copyleft license for the Ruby/laTex tools).  However said author would be able to the actual content of his work (words, illustrations, and so on) however he chose.</p><p>Really, separating content from presentation is half of the point of things like Tex and CSS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The root of the confusion is that you have different works jumbled together : The text , graphics , and organization of your book.The page design and layout of your finished outputThe Ruby code and laTex extensions used to render your book into a PDFIf you had licensed them separately , the situation would have been clearer .
The downstream author would need to grant you attribution for and share-alike any designs and layouts based off of yours , and any modifications to your code ( assuming you use a copyleft license for the Ruby/laTex tools ) .
However said author would be able to the actual content of his work ( words , illustrations , and so on ) however he chose.Really , separating content from presentation is half of the point of things like Tex and CSS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The root of the confusion is that you have different works jumbled together:  The text, graphics, and organization of your book.The page design and layout of your finished outputThe Ruby code and laTex extensions used to render your book into a PDFIf you had licensed them separately, the situation would have been clearer.
The downstream author would need to grant you attribution for and share-alike any designs and layouts based off of yours, and any modifications to your code (assuming you use a copyleft license for the Ruby/laTex tools).
However said author would be able to the actual content of his work (words, illustrations, and so on) however he chose.Really, separating content from presentation is half of the point of things like Tex and CSS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759285</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29761273</id>
	<title>Re:real issue, but is GPLv3 the solution?</title>
	<author>bk2204</author>
	<datestamp>1255639020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, the output of a program can be considered a derivative work if the program copies part of its code into the output.  For example, bison does so.  A fairly long time ago, the FSF added an exception to the GPL, stating that the output of bison was not necessarily GPLd, even if it was in fact a derivative work under copyright law.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , the output of a program can be considered a derivative work if the program copies part of its code into the output .
For example , bison does so .
A fairly long time ago , the FSF added an exception to the GPL , stating that the output of bison was not necessarily GPLd , even if it was in fact a derivative work under copyright law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, the output of a program can be considered a derivative work if the program copies part of its code into the output.
For example, bison does so.
A fairly long time ago, the FSF added an exception to the GPL, stating that the output of bison was not necessarily GPLd, even if it was in fact a derivative work under copyright law.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759953</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29765311</id>
	<title>Re:To express GPLv2 ideology in GPLv3 framework</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1255620960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is the kernel not licensed under GPLv2 currently?</p><p>If it is, relicensing it is simply a matter of changing the license to GPLv3<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... you know since GPLv2 says specifically that you can swap it out with any future GPL version.</p><p>No rewrite, no permissions, anyone can do it right now.</p><p>Doesn't mean anyone will contribute patches to it, but its certainly feasable for any GPLv2 code to convert to GPLv3 without the consent of any of its authors.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is the kernel not licensed under GPLv2 currently ? If it is , relicensing it is simply a matter of changing the license to GPLv3 ... you know since GPLv2 says specifically that you can swap it out with any future GPL version.No rewrite , no permissions , anyone can do it right now.Does n't mean anyone will contribute patches to it , but its certainly feasable for any GPLv2 code to convert to GPLv3 without the consent of any of its authors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is the kernel not licensed under GPLv2 currently?If it is, relicensing it is simply a matter of changing the license to GPLv3 ... you know since GPLv2 says specifically that you can swap it out with any future GPL version.No rewrite, no permissions, anyone can do it right now.Doesn't mean anyone will contribute patches to it, but its certainly feasable for any GPLv2 code to convert to GPLv3 without the consent of any of its authors.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759239</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29761399</id>
	<title>Re:Cause and Effect</title>
	<author>YenTheFirst</author>
	<datestamp>1255639740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, it depends, though. Some people attribute the success of Linux to GPL. (see <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20050204084929/www.kde.org/history/linus.php" title="archive.org" rel="nofollow">here</a> [archive.org], 3rd or 4th question) Obviously, the success of F/OSS isn't <i>entirely</i> due to Linux, but I'd wager it's helped more than not.</p><p>
Linux might have thrived just as much under a different license, but that's not what happened. But beyond speculation, can you really argue that one anti-copyright-lawyer-shark rock would have worked better than another?</p><p>
also:</p><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>Later, a full-force Bear Patrol is on watch.  Homer watches proudly.</i> <br>
<br>
<b>Homer</b>: Not a bear in sight.  The Bear Patrol must be working like a
       charm.<br>
<b>Lisa</b>: That's spacious reasoning, Dad.<br>
<b>Homer</b>: Thank you, dear.<br>
<b>Lisa</b>: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.<br>
<b>Homer</b>: Oh, how does it work?<br>
<b>Lisa</b>: It doesn't work.<br>
<b>Homer</b>: Uh-huh.<br>
<b>Lisa</b>: It's just a stupid rock.<br>
<b>Homer</b>: Uh-huh.<br>
<b>Lisa</b>: But I don't see any tigers around, do you?<br>
        [<i>Homer thinks of this, then pulls out some money</i>]<br>
<b>Homer</b>: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.<br>
        [<i>Lisa refuses at first, then takes the exchange</i>]</p> </div><p>(<a href="http://www.snpp.com/episodes/3F20.html" title="snpp.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.snpp.com/episodes/3F20.html</a> [snpp.com])<br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , it depends , though .
Some people attribute the success of Linux to GPL .
( see here [ archive.org ] , 3rd or 4th question ) Obviously , the success of F/OSS is n't entirely due to Linux , but I 'd wager it 's helped more than not .
Linux might have thrived just as much under a different license , but that 's not what happened .
But beyond speculation , can you really argue that one anti-copyright-lawyer-shark rock would have worked better than another ?
also : Later , a full-force Bear Patrol is on watch .
Homer watches proudly .
Homer : Not a bear in sight .
The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm .
Lisa : That 's spacious reasoning , Dad .
Homer : Thank you , dear .
Lisa : By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away .
Homer : Oh , how does it work ?
Lisa : It does n't work .
Homer : Uh-huh .
Lisa : It 's just a stupid rock .
Homer : Uh-huh .
Lisa : But I do n't see any tigers around , do you ?
[ Homer thinks of this , then pulls out some money ] Homer : Lisa , I want to buy your rock .
[ Lisa refuses at first , then takes the exchange ] ( http : //www.snpp.com/episodes/3F20.html [ snpp.com ] ) : D</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, it depends, though.
Some people attribute the success of Linux to GPL.
(see here [archive.org], 3rd or 4th question) Obviously, the success of F/OSS isn't entirely due to Linux, but I'd wager it's helped more than not.
Linux might have thrived just as much under a different license, but that's not what happened.
But beyond speculation, can you really argue that one anti-copyright-lawyer-shark rock would have worked better than another?
also: Later, a full-force Bear Patrol is on watch.
Homer watches proudly.
Homer: Not a bear in sight.
The Bear Patrol must be working like a
       charm.
Lisa: That's spacious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: Thank you, dear.
Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: Oh, how does it work?
Lisa: It doesn't work.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: It's just a stupid rock.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you?
[Homer thinks of this, then pulls out some money]
Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.
[Lisa refuses at first, then takes the exchange] (http://www.snpp.com/episodes/3F20.html [snpp.com]) :D
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759161</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29761217</id>
	<title>Re:real issue, but is GPLv3 the solution?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255638660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i think the point of this story is that it might not be the case......</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i think the point of this story is that it might not be the case..... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i think the point of this story is that it might not be the case......</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759953</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29765457</id>
	<title>Re:real issue, but is GPLv3 the solution?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255623120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IANAL but,</p><p>Output is not derived from the program, there is no legal basis for that.</p><p>According to the copyright act in most western countries, "mechanically produced works" are not copyrightable. That is, if you write a program that generates random sentences and it happens to generate the funniest joke you've ever read, you do <em>not</em> have a copyright on that text because it was generated randomly without "creativity" (The deciding factor with copyright is whether or not something is creative or not which is why lists of facts, or 'something not copyrighted that has been sorted alphabetically' [eg. TV guide listings] cannot be copyrighted).</p><p>To make a long story short, yes, using the programs is permitted though modifications to the programs themselves are not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IANAL but,Output is not derived from the program , there is no legal basis for that.According to the copyright act in most western countries , " mechanically produced works " are not copyrightable .
That is , if you write a program that generates random sentences and it happens to generate the funniest joke you 've ever read , you do not have a copyright on that text because it was generated randomly without " creativity " ( The deciding factor with copyright is whether or not something is creative or not which is why lists of facts , or 'something not copyrighted that has been sorted alphabetically ' [ eg .
TV guide listings ] can not be copyrighted ) .To make a long story short , yes , using the programs is permitted though modifications to the programs themselves are not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IANAL but,Output is not derived from the program, there is no legal basis for that.According to the copyright act in most western countries, "mechanically produced works" are not copyrightable.
That is, if you write a program that generates random sentences and it happens to generate the funniest joke you've ever read, you do not have a copyright on that text because it was generated randomly without "creativity" (The deciding factor with copyright is whether or not something is creative or not which is why lists of facts, or 'something not copyrighted that has been sorted alphabetically' [eg.
TV guide listings] cannot be copyrighted).To make a long story short, yes, using the programs is permitted though modifications to the programs themselves are not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759285</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29761099</id>
	<title>Derivative works and interpreted languages</title>
	<author>proxima</author>
	<datestamp>1255638000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One thing that's often confused me is the exact relationship between the GPL and interpreted languages.  For example, if I write a perl script which calls perl functionality which is part of the base interpreter, my script need not be distributed under the terms of the GPL.  This is akin to using a GPL word processor or other software, where the output of a program is not subject to the GPL.</p><p>If, on the other hand, my script calls a perl function which is itself written in perl (licensed under the GPL), the <a href="http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html#IfInterpreterIsGPL" title="gnu.org">FSF argues</a> [gnu.org] that this constitutes a derivative work akin to dynamic linking.  Thus, my script (if distributed) must be distributed under a GPL-compatible license.</p><p>I can see it both ways.  On the one hand, calling a function written in the same interpreted language is very much like calling a function in a library from a compiled binary.  On the other, it's strange to think that there's a distinction based on whether the function being called is written as part of the interpreter (in, for example, C) versus the interpreted language itself.  In addition, there seems to be disagreement about whether the GPL really binds like the FSF claims.  Lots of interpreted code gets released as the GPL when it seems likely that the LGPL is what the authors really intend; that is, they do not want to restrict scripts and functions which call the code.</p><p>A good example of this is <a href="http://www.r-project.org/" title="r-project.org">R</a> [r-project.org]  This statistical language has fairly small interpreter and a large set of both included and downloadable packages, themselves written in R (and licensed under the GPL).  Clearly most of the primary authors do not intend for all R scripts using the most basic of functionality to be released in a GPL compatible way; for one, they make the header files necessary for writing C-based libraries for use in R LGPL to explicitly allow such libraries to be non-free.  In addition, they are fine with a large number of downloadable packages which restrict commercial use (obviously not allowed under the GPL).  Their interpretation of the GPL seems at odds with the FSF.  Even if you want to release all your code in a GPL-compatible way, it may be (IANAL) that you cannot call both code restricted from commercial use and GPL-licensed code (basically unavoidable) in the same project.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One thing that 's often confused me is the exact relationship between the GPL and interpreted languages .
For example , if I write a perl script which calls perl functionality which is part of the base interpreter , my script need not be distributed under the terms of the GPL .
This is akin to using a GPL word processor or other software , where the output of a program is not subject to the GPL.If , on the other hand , my script calls a perl function which is itself written in perl ( licensed under the GPL ) , the FSF argues [ gnu.org ] that this constitutes a derivative work akin to dynamic linking .
Thus , my script ( if distributed ) must be distributed under a GPL-compatible license.I can see it both ways .
On the one hand , calling a function written in the same interpreted language is very much like calling a function in a library from a compiled binary .
On the other , it 's strange to think that there 's a distinction based on whether the function being called is written as part of the interpreter ( in , for example , C ) versus the interpreted language itself .
In addition , there seems to be disagreement about whether the GPL really binds like the FSF claims .
Lots of interpreted code gets released as the GPL when it seems likely that the LGPL is what the authors really intend ; that is , they do not want to restrict scripts and functions which call the code.A good example of this is R [ r-project.org ] This statistical language has fairly small interpreter and a large set of both included and downloadable packages , themselves written in R ( and licensed under the GPL ) .
Clearly most of the primary authors do not intend for all R scripts using the most basic of functionality to be released in a GPL compatible way ; for one , they make the header files necessary for writing C-based libraries for use in R LGPL to explicitly allow such libraries to be non-free .
In addition , they are fine with a large number of downloadable packages which restrict commercial use ( obviously not allowed under the GPL ) .
Their interpretation of the GPL seems at odds with the FSF .
Even if you want to release all your code in a GPL-compatible way , it may be ( IANAL ) that you can not call both code restricted from commercial use and GPL-licensed code ( basically unavoidable ) in the same project .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One thing that's often confused me is the exact relationship between the GPL and interpreted languages.
For example, if I write a perl script which calls perl functionality which is part of the base interpreter, my script need not be distributed under the terms of the GPL.
This is akin to using a GPL word processor or other software, where the output of a program is not subject to the GPL.If, on the other hand, my script calls a perl function which is itself written in perl (licensed under the GPL), the FSF argues [gnu.org] that this constitutes a derivative work akin to dynamic linking.
Thus, my script (if distributed) must be distributed under a GPL-compatible license.I can see it both ways.
On the one hand, calling a function written in the same interpreted language is very much like calling a function in a library from a compiled binary.
On the other, it's strange to think that there's a distinction based on whether the function being called is written as part of the interpreter (in, for example, C) versus the interpreted language itself.
In addition, there seems to be disagreement about whether the GPL really binds like the FSF claims.
Lots of interpreted code gets released as the GPL when it seems likely that the LGPL is what the authors really intend; that is, they do not want to restrict scripts and functions which call the code.A good example of this is R [r-project.org]  This statistical language has fairly small interpreter and a large set of both included and downloadable packages, themselves written in R (and licensed under the GPL).
Clearly most of the primary authors do not intend for all R scripts using the most basic of functionality to be released in a GPL compatible way; for one, they make the header files necessary for writing C-based libraries for use in R LGPL to explicitly allow such libraries to be non-free.
In addition, they are fine with a large number of downloadable packages which restrict commercial use (obviously not allowed under the GPL).
Their interpretation of the GPL seems at odds with the FSF.
Even if you want to release all your code in a GPL-compatible way, it may be (IANAL) that you cannot call both code restricted from commercial use and GPL-licensed code (basically unavoidable) in the same project.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29763201</id>
	<title>Re:Not as bad as it sounds!</title>
	<author>smoker2</author>
	<datestamp>1255604220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>According to the AGPL quote somewhere above, you HAVE to distribute your source if people interact directly with the program you have altered. How is that different from regular GPLd software like oscommerce where the source is shared and people do share their changes. And the end users can  get it too if they want. Or are you just paranoid nobody will use it ? How would you even know that somebody had improved the source without stalking every downloader of your version ? Trust. Learn it.</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>According to the AGPL quote somewhere above , you HAVE to distribute your source if people interact directly with the program you have altered .
How is that different from regular GPLd software like oscommerce where the source is shared and people do share their changes .
And the end users can get it too if they want .
Or are you just paranoid nobody will use it ?
How would you even know that somebody had improved the source without stalking every downloader of your version ?
Trust. Learn it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to the AGPL quote somewhere above, you HAVE to distribute your source if people interact directly with the program you have altered.
How is that different from regular GPLd software like oscommerce where the source is shared and people do share their changes.
And the end users can  get it too if they want.
Or are you just paranoid nobody will use it ?
How would you even know that somebody had improved the source without stalking every downloader of your version ?
Trust. Learn it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759905</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29762383</id>
	<title>Re:USA is not the whole world!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255600980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What fantasy world are you living in?</p><p>The US is not the whole world but it is certainly at the center of issues like this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What fantasy world are you living in ? The US is not the whole world but it is certainly at the center of issues like this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What fantasy world are you living in?The US is not the whole world but it is certainly at the center of issues like this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759393</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29777785</id>
	<title>I belive the lawyers are confused</title>
	<author>Cacadril</author>
	<datestamp>1255796580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>IANAL, but this article does not make sense to me.

<p>I do not write, or interpret, the Copyright law.  The Parliament, and the courts, respectively, do. The Parliament or whatever you have in your country.

</p><p>Copyright law disallows certain acts *unless I give permission*.

</p><p>If an act is not regulated by Copyright law, then the question of my consent does not arise. If an act by its nature is regulated by Copyright law, but the object of the act is a work that is not so related to any work in which I hold rights, as to to require my permission according Copyright law, then the question does not arise. I case of doubt, any court should first determine if my permission is required, then ask if I have given such permission. Only then my answer is the GPL.

</p><p>The GPL must then be interpreted in light of the question to which it is answering.

</p><p>The GPL v. 2 contains this passage:</p><blockquote><div><p>Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted (...)</p></div>
</blockquote><p>

This may seem like a contradiction: Does the license permit running the Program? But the whole document is clearly written in non-legalese language, with a long preamble, and many passages that clearly tries to explain to non-lawyers how copyright law works. What here is expressed is that the law, as the author of the license knew it at the time, did not require permission for the running of the program. This is of course unfortunate, as there are different laws in different countries. However, the GPL also says</p><blockquote><div><p>You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>

If any act requires permission from a copyright holder, and the text of the GPL forgets to give that permission, this is not a disaster. The copyright holders can always issue additional permissions later. In any case, permission is not given in the GPL in such cases.

</p><p>I am not denying the virtues of clear unambiguous licenses. But courts routinely interpret contracts and agreements written by laypersons. Courts are supposed to estimate the intentions of the parties, and whether they have made reasonable efforts to communicate their intentions to the other party, and made reasonable efforts to understand the other party's intentions. No party shall be bound by conditions that he reasonably remained unaware of when he entered into the contract.

</p><p>Underlying this is the understanding that an agreement is an attempt by two or more parties to establish a cooperation to mutual benefit. While standards may vary in different regions as to the extent of the obligation of the parties to actually read the small print -- that is, receive the communications from the other party about his intentions, or conversely the extent of the obligation to communicate your conditions with clarity, in no region is the entering into an agreement seen as a challenge to the other party to "game me if you can".

</p><p>In the case of the GPL, the intention of the person who chooses the GPL for his work transpires with clarity from the whole document. The long preamble helps setting the context. It transpires that the copyright holder wish to initiate a commons, to which others may contribute, or to contribute to an existing one. In no statement of the GPL is it expressed any consent, supposing such consent is required, to contribute in any way to anything that is not itself in such a commons.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>IANAL , but this article does not make sense to me .
I do not write , or interpret , the Copyright law .
The Parliament , and the courts , respectively , do .
The Parliament or whatever you have in your country .
Copyright law disallows certain acts * unless I give permission * .
If an act is not regulated by Copyright law , then the question of my consent does not arise .
If an act by its nature is regulated by Copyright law , but the object of the act is a work that is not so related to any work in which I hold rights , as to to require my permission according Copyright law , then the question does not arise .
I case of doubt , any court should first determine if my permission is required , then ask if I have given such permission .
Only then my answer is the GPL .
The GPL must then be interpreted in light of the question to which it is answering .
The GPL v. 2 contains this passage : Activities other than copying , distribution and modification are not covered by this License ; they are outside its scope .
The act of running the Program is not restricted ( ... ) This may seem like a contradiction : Does the license permit running the Program ?
But the whole document is clearly written in non-legalese language , with a long preamble , and many passages that clearly tries to explain to non-lawyers how copyright law works .
What here is expressed is that the law , as the author of the license knew it at the time , did not require permission for the running of the program .
This is of course unfortunate , as there are different laws in different countries .
However , the GPL also saysYou may not copy , modify , sublicense , or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License .
If any act requires permission from a copyright holder , and the text of the GPL forgets to give that permission , this is not a disaster .
The copyright holders can always issue additional permissions later .
In any case , permission is not given in the GPL in such cases .
I am not denying the virtues of clear unambiguous licenses .
But courts routinely interpret contracts and agreements written by laypersons .
Courts are supposed to estimate the intentions of the parties , and whether they have made reasonable efforts to communicate their intentions to the other party , and made reasonable efforts to understand the other party 's intentions .
No party shall be bound by conditions that he reasonably remained unaware of when he entered into the contract .
Underlying this is the understanding that an agreement is an attempt by two or more parties to establish a cooperation to mutual benefit .
While standards may vary in different regions as to the extent of the obligation of the parties to actually read the small print -- that is , receive the communications from the other party about his intentions , or conversely the extent of the obligation to communicate your conditions with clarity , in no region is the entering into an agreement seen as a challenge to the other party to " game me if you can " .
In the case of the GPL , the intention of the person who chooses the GPL for his work transpires with clarity from the whole document .
The long preamble helps setting the context .
It transpires that the copyright holder wish to initiate a commons , to which others may contribute , or to contribute to an existing one .
In no statement of the GPL is it expressed any consent , supposing such consent is required , to contribute in any way to anything that is not itself in such a commons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IANAL, but this article does not make sense to me.
I do not write, or interpret, the Copyright law.
The Parliament, and the courts, respectively, do.
The Parliament or whatever you have in your country.
Copyright law disallows certain acts *unless I give permission*.
If an act is not regulated by Copyright law, then the question of my consent does not arise.
If an act by its nature is regulated by Copyright law, but the object of the act is a work that is not so related to any work in which I hold rights, as to to require my permission according Copyright law, then the question does not arise.
I case of doubt, any court should first determine if my permission is required, then ask if I have given such permission.
Only then my answer is the GPL.
The GPL must then be interpreted in light of the question to which it is answering.
The GPL v. 2 contains this passage:Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope.
The act of running the Program is not restricted (...)


This may seem like a contradiction: Does the license permit running the Program?
But the whole document is clearly written in non-legalese language, with a long preamble, and many passages that clearly tries to explain to non-lawyers how copyright law works.
What here is expressed is that the law, as the author of the license knew it at the time, did not require permission for the running of the program.
This is of course unfortunate, as there are different laws in different countries.
However, the GPL also saysYou may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License.
If any act requires permission from a copyright holder, and the text of the GPL forgets to give that permission, this is not a disaster.
The copyright holders can always issue additional permissions later.
In any case, permission is not given in the GPL in such cases.
I am not denying the virtues of clear unambiguous licenses.
But courts routinely interpret contracts and agreements written by laypersons.
Courts are supposed to estimate the intentions of the parties, and whether they have made reasonable efforts to communicate their intentions to the other party, and made reasonable efforts to understand the other party's intentions.
No party shall be bound by conditions that he reasonably remained unaware of when he entered into the contract.
Underlying this is the understanding that an agreement is an attempt by two or more parties to establish a cooperation to mutual benefit.
While standards may vary in different regions as to the extent of the obligation of the parties to actually read the small print -- that is, receive the communications from the other party about his intentions, or conversely the extent of the obligation to communicate your conditions with clarity, in no region is the entering into an agreement seen as a challenge to the other party to "game me if you can".
In the case of the GPL, the intention of the person who chooses the GPL for his work transpires with clarity from the whole document.
The long preamble helps setting the context.
It transpires that the copyright holder wish to initiate a commons, to which others may contribute, or to contribute to an existing one.
In no statement of the GPL is it expressed any consent, supposing such consent is required, to contribute in any way to anything that is not itself in such a commons.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759629</id>
	<title>Re:real issue, but is GPLv3 the solution?</title>
	<author>Hognoxious</author>
	<datestamp>1255631400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>For instance, I wrote a physics textbook, which is open-source</p></div></blockquote><p>No you didn't.  I didn't compose an open source song, and that guy over there didn't make open source  blueberry jam.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For instance , I wrote a physics textbook , which is open-sourceNo you did n't .
I did n't compose an open source song , and that guy over there did n't make open source blueberry jam .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For instance, I wrote a physics textbook, which is open-sourceNo you didn't.
I didn't compose an open source song, and that guy over there didn't make open source  blueberry jam.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759285</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759905</id>
	<title>Re:Not as bad as it sounds!</title>
	<author>kestasjk</author>
	<datestamp>1255632480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I chose the AGPL for a web project of mine, and the protection it gives is pretty essential. Without it someone could take the code, improve it and run their site based on it without sharing the improvements back.<br>
You may hate that etc, and prefer not to share the improvements back, but for my web project I've been able to add lots of improvements to my code that derivative sites wouldn't have been obliged to share otherwise, and everyone enjoys the better code as a result.<br> <br>

If you don't think that's fair I'd be interested to hear why not.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I chose the AGPL for a web project of mine , and the protection it gives is pretty essential .
Without it someone could take the code , improve it and run their site based on it without sharing the improvements back .
You may hate that etc , and prefer not to share the improvements back , but for my web project I 've been able to add lots of improvements to my code that derivative sites would n't have been obliged to share otherwise , and everyone enjoys the better code as a result .
If you do n't think that 's fair I 'd be interested to hear why not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I chose the AGPL for a web project of mine, and the protection it gives is pretty essential.
Without it someone could take the code, improve it and run their site based on it without sharing the improvements back.
You may hate that etc, and prefer not to share the improvements back, but for my web project I've been able to add lots of improvements to my code that derivative sites wouldn't have been obliged to share otherwise, and everyone enjoys the better code as a result.
If you don't think that's fair I'd be interested to hear why not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759295</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29764431</id>
	<title>Re:Conspiracy?</title>
	<author>dijjnn</author>
	<datestamp>1255612020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I definitely understand what you're saying, and I suppose it's all a perspective thing. I actually had dinner with him &amp; a bunch of computer science students at the University of Chicago, and found that once you got him past the software stuff he became a pretty interesting conversationalist. It was a pretty good time, all things considered.</p><p>While I agree with most of his points regarding Free Software, I find that when it comes to this topic he's much less flexible in his conversation, though his actual contributions are undeniable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I definitely understand what you 're saying , and I suppose it 's all a perspective thing .
I actually had dinner with him &amp; a bunch of computer science students at the University of Chicago , and found that once you got him past the software stuff he became a pretty interesting conversationalist .
It was a pretty good time , all things considered.While I agree with most of his points regarding Free Software , I find that when it comes to this topic he 's much less flexible in his conversation , though his actual contributions are undeniable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I definitely understand what you're saying, and I suppose it's all a perspective thing.
I actually had dinner with him &amp; a bunch of computer science students at the University of Chicago, and found that once you got him past the software stuff he became a pretty interesting conversationalist.
It was a pretty good time, all things considered.While I agree with most of his points regarding Free Software, I find that when it comes to this topic he's much less flexible in his conversation, though his actual contributions are undeniable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759783</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29760971</id>
	<title>Re:Cause and Effect</title>
	<author>Attila Dimedici</author>
	<datestamp>1255637340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>Maybe the way it was written is why FOSS is where it's at? Might not be such a bad idea to keep it around?</p></div><p>Then again, maybe the GPL <a href="http://www.freebsd.org/" title="freebsd.org">is</a> [freebsd.org] <a href="http://www.python.org/" title="python.org">not</a> [python.org] <a href="http://www.apache.org/" title="apache.org">responsible</a> [apache.org] for great free software and open source software being written.</p><p>Don't get me wrong, I think developers should be allowed to pick their license of choice, including GPL. But there are plenty of examples of free software and open source software being highly successful and widely used that are not GPL'd.</p><p>The assumption that the GPL is responsible for the success of FOSS reminds me of a Simpsons episode where Homer is carrying a rock around that supposedly repels lions (or something). Lisa says, "That's ridiculous! What makes you think that repels lions?" and Homer replies, "You don't see any lions around, do you?"</p></div><p>I believe that the publicity surrounding GPL and the way it forces developers who use code licensed under it was a major factor in the expansion and acceptance of open source software. That doesn't mean that those other licenses aren't just as valuable to the ongoing health of and expansion of open source software. It just means that GPL created the mindspace to allow non-geeks to view open source as something more than a fringe element.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe the way it was written is why FOSS is where it 's at ?
Might not be such a bad idea to keep it around ? Then again , maybe the GPL is [ freebsd.org ] not [ python.org ] responsible [ apache.org ] for great free software and open source software being written.Do n't get me wrong , I think developers should be allowed to pick their license of choice , including GPL .
But there are plenty of examples of free software and open source software being highly successful and widely used that are not GPL 'd.The assumption that the GPL is responsible for the success of FOSS reminds me of a Simpsons episode where Homer is carrying a rock around that supposedly repels lions ( or something ) .
Lisa says , " That 's ridiculous !
What makes you think that repels lions ?
" and Homer replies , " You do n't see any lions around , do you ?
" I believe that the publicity surrounding GPL and the way it forces developers who use code licensed under it was a major factor in the expansion and acceptance of open source software .
That does n't mean that those other licenses are n't just as valuable to the ongoing health of and expansion of open source software .
It just means that GPL created the mindspace to allow non-geeks to view open source as something more than a fringe element .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe the way it was written is why FOSS is where it's at?
Might not be such a bad idea to keep it around?Then again, maybe the GPL is [freebsd.org] not [python.org] responsible [apache.org] for great free software and open source software being written.Don't get me wrong, I think developers should be allowed to pick their license of choice, including GPL.
But there are plenty of examples of free software and open source software being highly successful and widely used that are not GPL'd.The assumption that the GPL is responsible for the success of FOSS reminds me of a Simpsons episode where Homer is carrying a rock around that supposedly repels lions (or something).
Lisa says, "That's ridiculous!
What makes you think that repels lions?
" and Homer replies, "You don't see any lions around, do you?
"I believe that the publicity surrounding GPL and the way it forces developers who use code licensed under it was a major factor in the expansion and acceptance of open source software.
That doesn't mean that those other licenses aren't just as valuable to the ongoing health of and expansion of open source software.
It just means that GPL created the mindspace to allow non-geeks to view open source as something more than a fringe element.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759161</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759071</id>
	<title>Ideology?</title>
	<author>DesScorp</author>
	<datestamp>1255628940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How much of this is about nudging Linus... pushing him, really... into applying GPL 3 to the Linux kernel?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How much of this is about nudging Linus... pushing him , really... into applying GPL 3 to the Linux kernel ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How much of this is about nudging Linus... pushing him, really... into applying GPL 3 to the Linux kernel?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759967</id>
	<title>Re:Distribute seems fine; derivative work, maybe n</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255632780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I don't understand how 'propagate' and 'convey' are any better than 'distribute'.</i></p><p>In Anglo-Saxon law, the former terms have legal definitions and a set of case law.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't understand how 'propagate ' and 'convey ' are any better than 'distribute'.In Anglo-Saxon law , the former terms have legal definitions and a set of case law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't understand how 'propagate' and 'convey' are any better than 'distribute'.In Anglo-Saxon law, the former terms have legal definitions and a set of case law.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759477</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29758925</id>
	<title>Cause and Effect</title>
	<author>iamhigh</author>
	<datestamp>1255628280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They claim GPLv3 and AGPLv3 are much better suited for the realities of modern open source software.</p></div><p>...</p><p><div class="quote"><p> "At that time, open source was not something as broadly used as it is now."</p></div><p>Maybe the way it was written is why FOSS is where it's at?  Might not be such a bad idea to keep it around?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They claim GPLv3 and AGPLv3 are much better suited for the realities of modern open source software.... " At that time , open source was not something as broadly used as it is now .
" Maybe the way it was written is why FOSS is where it 's at ?
Might not be such a bad idea to keep it around ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They claim GPLv3 and AGPLv3 are much better suited for the realities of modern open source software.... "At that time, open source was not something as broadly used as it is now.
"Maybe the way it was written is why FOSS is where it's at?
Might not be such a bad idea to keep it around?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29765335</id>
	<title>Re:real issue, but is GPLv3 the solution?</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1255621320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uhm, you realize licensing your work to others does not remove YOUR rights to it as the owner, right?</p><blockquote><div><p>I got an email from a guy at MSU who was writing a textbook, and had already started using my code to handle the illustrations. He wanted to check whether it was okay under the license, since he didn't intend to release his own book under a CC license. Well, my answer ended up being that I really didn't know whether it was okay or not.</p></div> </blockquote><p>It doesn't matter what license you released it as, you can always grant him additional rights as the actual copyright holder.</p><p>Perhaps you should consider getting legal advice before even choosing a license as you seem to be pretty uneducated in the copyright system and licensing in general.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Uhm , you realize licensing your work to others does not remove YOUR rights to it as the owner , right ? I got an email from a guy at MSU who was writing a textbook , and had already started using my code to handle the illustrations .
He wanted to check whether it was okay under the license , since he did n't intend to release his own book under a CC license .
Well , my answer ended up being that I really did n't know whether it was okay or not .
It does n't matter what license you released it as , you can always grant him additional rights as the actual copyright holder.Perhaps you should consider getting legal advice before even choosing a license as you seem to be pretty uneducated in the copyright system and licensing in general .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uhm, you realize licensing your work to others does not remove YOUR rights to it as the owner, right?I got an email from a guy at MSU who was writing a textbook, and had already started using my code to handle the illustrations.
He wanted to check whether it was okay under the license, since he didn't intend to release his own book under a CC license.
Well, my answer ended up being that I really didn't know whether it was okay or not.
It doesn't matter what license you released it as, you can always grant him additional rights as the actual copyright holder.Perhaps you should consider getting legal advice before even choosing a license as you seem to be pretty uneducated in the copyright system and licensing in general.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759285</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759285</id>
	<title>real issue, but is GPLv3 the solution?</title>
	<author>bcrowell</author>
	<datestamp>1255629900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
This is a real issue. For instance, I wrote a physics textbook, which is open-source, and I wrote a bunch of ruby and latex code that helps to produce the pdf from the latex sources, automatically handling some things relating to placement of figures on the page that are awkward to do with plain latex. My book, including the ruby and latex code, is under CC-BY-SA. I got an email from a guy at MSU who was writing a textbook, and had already started using my code to handle the illustrations. He wanted to check whether it was okay under the license, since he didn't intend to release his own book under a CC license. Well, my answer ended up being that I really didn't know whether it was okay or not. It wasn't clear to me whether his work counted as a derived work. On the one hand, you could say that what he was using was simply some software I wrote, so his book isn't a derived work based on my software any more than a book written in MS Word is a derived work based on Word. On the other hand, there's really no perfect separation between the software and our books. When you write a book in latex, the latex code *is* a piece of software. My code generates various boilerplate in its output, some of which is text that is visible to the reader, so it's under my copyright and license. Of course I could have just told him that it wasn't an issue, and I wouldn't sue him, but I had intentionally chosen the strong copyleft because that's what I wanted. I suspect that a lawyer would tell him his work was actually not a derived work, but I also suspect that he (and his eventual publisher) wouldn't even want to get into that issue.
</p><p>
Although the issue is real, it seems goofy to me to suggest GPLv3 as the fix for the problem. First off, there are huge philosophical differences between v2 and v3. Also, there is so much GPL v2 code out there that you can't necessarily just relicense under GPL v3 without causing yourself hassles with license incompatibilities. I also don't quite understand how they think they can bypass the fact that various countries have various inconsistent and ambiguous definitions of a derived work. The only thing that forces anyone to accept the GPL license attached to a work is that copyright law doesn't allow them to do certain things without a license from the author. Those things include (1) copying and redistributing the work, and (2) creating and distributing derived works from it.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a real issue .
For instance , I wrote a physics textbook , which is open-source , and I wrote a bunch of ruby and latex code that helps to produce the pdf from the latex sources , automatically handling some things relating to placement of figures on the page that are awkward to do with plain latex .
My book , including the ruby and latex code , is under CC-BY-SA .
I got an email from a guy at MSU who was writing a textbook , and had already started using my code to handle the illustrations .
He wanted to check whether it was okay under the license , since he did n't intend to release his own book under a CC license .
Well , my answer ended up being that I really did n't know whether it was okay or not .
It was n't clear to me whether his work counted as a derived work .
On the one hand , you could say that what he was using was simply some software I wrote , so his book is n't a derived work based on my software any more than a book written in MS Word is a derived work based on Word .
On the other hand , there 's really no perfect separation between the software and our books .
When you write a book in latex , the latex code * is * a piece of software .
My code generates various boilerplate in its output , some of which is text that is visible to the reader , so it 's under my copyright and license .
Of course I could have just told him that it was n't an issue , and I would n't sue him , but I had intentionally chosen the strong copyleft because that 's what I wanted .
I suspect that a lawyer would tell him his work was actually not a derived work , but I also suspect that he ( and his eventual publisher ) would n't even want to get into that issue .
Although the issue is real , it seems goofy to me to suggest GPLv3 as the fix for the problem .
First off , there are huge philosophical differences between v2 and v3 .
Also , there is so much GPL v2 code out there that you ca n't necessarily just relicense under GPL v3 without causing yourself hassles with license incompatibilities .
I also do n't quite understand how they think they can bypass the fact that various countries have various inconsistent and ambiguous definitions of a derived work .
The only thing that forces anyone to accept the GPL license attached to a work is that copyright law does n't allow them to do certain things without a license from the author .
Those things include ( 1 ) copying and redistributing the work , and ( 2 ) creating and distributing derived works from it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
This is a real issue.
For instance, I wrote a physics textbook, which is open-source, and I wrote a bunch of ruby and latex code that helps to produce the pdf from the latex sources, automatically handling some things relating to placement of figures on the page that are awkward to do with plain latex.
My book, including the ruby and latex code, is under CC-BY-SA.
I got an email from a guy at MSU who was writing a textbook, and had already started using my code to handle the illustrations.
He wanted to check whether it was okay under the license, since he didn't intend to release his own book under a CC license.
Well, my answer ended up being that I really didn't know whether it was okay or not.
It wasn't clear to me whether his work counted as a derived work.
On the one hand, you could say that what he was using was simply some software I wrote, so his book isn't a derived work based on my software any more than a book written in MS Word is a derived work based on Word.
On the other hand, there's really no perfect separation between the software and our books.
When you write a book in latex, the latex code *is* a piece of software.
My code generates various boilerplate in its output, some of which is text that is visible to the reader, so it's under my copyright and license.
Of course I could have just told him that it wasn't an issue, and I wouldn't sue him, but I had intentionally chosen the strong copyleft because that's what I wanted.
I suspect that a lawyer would tell him his work was actually not a derived work, but I also suspect that he (and his eventual publisher) wouldn't even want to get into that issue.
Although the issue is real, it seems goofy to me to suggest GPLv3 as the fix for the problem.
First off, there are huge philosophical differences between v2 and v3.
Also, there is so much GPL v2 code out there that you can't necessarily just relicense under GPL v3 without causing yourself hassles with license incompatibilities.
I also don't quite understand how they think they can bypass the fact that various countries have various inconsistent and ambiguous definitions of a derived work.
The only thing that forces anyone to accept the GPL license attached to a work is that copyright law doesn't allow them to do certain things without a license from the author.
Those things include (1) copying and redistributing the work, and (2) creating and distributing derived works from it.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29760139</id>
	<title>Re:More Lawyerese.</title>
	<author>Tetsujin</author>
	<datestamp>1255633440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why can't people take responsibilities for themselves, do what is right in terms of copyright, and maybe then we wouldn't have lawyers nit picking us to death.  Or as the old joke goes:<br>"What is a thousand lawyers at the bottom of the sea?"<br>Answer: "A good start."</p></div><p>This is the cost of having a set of precisely-defined and (one would hope) consistently enforced laws, as opposed to a set of broadly-defined, easy-to-understand laws, and be completely at the mercy of the (hopefully reasonable) judge to supply the proper interpretation...  Defining the laws becomes more complex if you want to remove the ambiguities and minimize the influence of judges' <em>personal feelings</em> into their interpretation of the law and judgments.</p><p>I don't like your plan for an undersea colony of lawyers, though.  They could probably telecommute or something but I feel like they'd get out of touch with their clients.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why ca n't people take responsibilities for themselves , do what is right in terms of copyright , and maybe then we would n't have lawyers nit picking us to death .
Or as the old joke goes : " What is a thousand lawyers at the bottom of the sea ?
" Answer : " A good start .
" This is the cost of having a set of precisely-defined and ( one would hope ) consistently enforced laws , as opposed to a set of broadly-defined , easy-to-understand laws , and be completely at the mercy of the ( hopefully reasonable ) judge to supply the proper interpretation... Defining the laws becomes more complex if you want to remove the ambiguities and minimize the influence of judges ' personal feelings into their interpretation of the law and judgments.I do n't like your plan for an undersea colony of lawyers , though .
They could probably telecommute or something but I feel like they 'd get out of touch with their clients .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why can't people take responsibilities for themselves, do what is right in terms of copyright, and maybe then we wouldn't have lawyers nit picking us to death.
Or as the old joke goes:"What is a thousand lawyers at the bottom of the sea?
"Answer: "A good start.
"This is the cost of having a set of precisely-defined and (one would hope) consistently enforced laws, as opposed to a set of broadly-defined, easy-to-understand laws, and be completely at the mercy of the (hopefully reasonable) judge to supply the proper interpretation...  Defining the laws becomes more complex if you want to remove the ambiguities and minimize the influence of judges' personal feelings into their interpretation of the law and judgments.I don't like your plan for an undersea colony of lawyers, though.
They could probably telecommute or something but I feel like they'd get out of touch with their clients.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759163</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759421</id>
	<title>Re:Conspiracy?</title>
	<author>V!NCENT</author>
	<datestamp>1255630440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And why would that be?</htmltext>
<tokenext>And why would that be ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And why would that be?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759157</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29761559</id>
	<title>Re:Conspiracy?</title>
	<author>Maximum Prophet</author>
	<datestamp>1255597320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I guess I'm one of those extremist nuts.  I heard about Tivo, knew they used Linux and heard they tolerated the hacker community.  I purchased a Tivo Series 2.5, then when I went to extend it, found out they had encrypted the kernel and binaries, and it would take a hardware hack to get the thing to do what I wanted it to. Damn, I was pissed off!  I had paid for the hardware and a lifetime subscription, and now they wanted to lock me out.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess I 'm one of those extremist nuts .
I heard about Tivo , knew they used Linux and heard they tolerated the hacker community .
I purchased a Tivo Series 2.5 , then when I went to extend it , found out they had encrypted the kernel and binaries , and it would take a hardware hack to get the thing to do what I wanted it to .
Damn , I was pissed off !
I had paid for the hardware and a lifetime subscription , and now they wanted to lock me out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess I'm one of those extremist nuts.
I heard about Tivo, knew they used Linux and heard they tolerated the hacker community.
I purchased a Tivo Series 2.5, then when I went to extend it, found out they had encrypted the kernel and binaries, and it would take a hardware hack to get the thing to do what I wanted it to.
Damn, I was pissed off!
I had paid for the hardware and a lifetime subscription, and now they wanted to lock me out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759059</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29768317</id>
	<title>Re:real issue, but is GPLv3 the solution?</title>
	<author>magus\_melchior</author>
	<datestamp>1255706340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll chuck my mod rights to state the bleeding obvious:</p><p>Depending on the composer or cook, songs and culinary dishes can be open-source. Consider what the "source code" is for each: sheet music and recipes. Not too hard to share these, especially in this increasingly-digitally-connected world, no?</p><p>Of course, both require additional equipment and often some skills that no computer can reasonably provide (yet), but that's true of open-source software as well. You can't build Linux off a source DVD alone, nor can you compile X.org from the source someone gives you on a USB stick.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll chuck my mod rights to state the bleeding obvious : Depending on the composer or cook , songs and culinary dishes can be open-source .
Consider what the " source code " is for each : sheet music and recipes .
Not too hard to share these , especially in this increasingly-digitally-connected world , no ? Of course , both require additional equipment and often some skills that no computer can reasonably provide ( yet ) , but that 's true of open-source software as well .
You ca n't build Linux off a source DVD alone , nor can you compile X.org from the source someone gives you on a USB stick .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll chuck my mod rights to state the bleeding obvious:Depending on the composer or cook, songs and culinary dishes can be open-source.
Consider what the "source code" is for each: sheet music and recipes.
Not too hard to share these, especially in this increasingly-digitally-connected world, no?Of course, both require additional equipment and often some skills that no computer can reasonably provide (yet), but that's true of open-source software as well.
You can't build Linux off a source DVD alone, nor can you compile X.org from the source someone gives you on a USB stick.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759629</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29764211</id>
	<title>Re:real issue, but is GPLv3 the solution?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255610280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not exactly. If I remember correctly, the GPL2 had to add a special exception for exactly this case, where programs output parts of themselves (Bison, I think). With binary document formats and macros and scripts, it's not nearly as clear-cut as you might think.</p><p>It's still a bit of an open question, actually, under most licenses, if, a compiler inserts static code into an output program, then does the copyright holder of the compiler own a portion (or all) of the output binary? GCC was in fact changed to specifically avoid this behavior so as not to raise the question.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not exactly .
If I remember correctly , the GPL2 had to add a special exception for exactly this case , where programs output parts of themselves ( Bison , I think ) .
With binary document formats and macros and scripts , it 's not nearly as clear-cut as you might think.It 's still a bit of an open question , actually , under most licenses , if , a compiler inserts static code into an output program , then does the copyright holder of the compiler own a portion ( or all ) of the output binary ?
GCC was in fact changed to specifically avoid this behavior so as not to raise the question .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not exactly.
If I remember correctly, the GPL2 had to add a special exception for exactly this case, where programs output parts of themselves (Bison, I think).
With binary document formats and macros and scripts, it's not nearly as clear-cut as you might think.It's still a bit of an open question, actually, under most licenses, if, a compiler inserts static code into an output program, then does the copyright holder of the compiler own a portion (or all) of the output binary?
GCC was in fact changed to specifically avoid this behavior so as not to raise the question.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759953</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29758953</id>
	<title>Every license is ambiguous</title>
	<author>iamacat</author>
	<datestamp>1255628400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you just take a GPL project, add a new UI skin and sell it in binary form, judge will make you release the source notwithstanding the license ambiguities. If what you are doing is not <b>clearly</b> a derivative work (like code inspired by reading a textbook) or you have a reasonable fair use case (like using the client part of client/server stack which is complex and not documented except for existence of the code itself), it's a good thing that the license will not be enforced.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you just take a GPL project , add a new UI skin and sell it in binary form , judge will make you release the source notwithstanding the license ambiguities .
If what you are doing is not clearly a derivative work ( like code inspired by reading a textbook ) or you have a reasonable fair use case ( like using the client part of client/server stack which is complex and not documented except for existence of the code itself ) , it 's a good thing that the license will not be enforced .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you just take a GPL project, add a new UI skin and sell it in binary form, judge will make you release the source notwithstanding the license ambiguities.
If what you are doing is not clearly a derivative work (like code inspired by reading a textbook) or you have a reasonable fair use case (like using the client part of client/server stack which is complex and not documented except for existence of the code itself), it's a good thing that the license will not be enforced.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759123</id>
	<title>"Derivative work"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255629180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>TFA claims that the term "derivative work" as used in GPLv2 requires further definition in the GPL itself because courts haven't clarified it, but this is wrong.  The authors of the GPLv2 (i.e. RMS) clearly intended it to cover as much as possible: any and all works following under the statutory definition.  It's true that software copyright cases are rare so the lgegal system hasn't developed the idea completely -- but that's not the GPL's duty.</htmltext>
<tokenext>TFA claims that the term " derivative work " as used in GPLv2 requires further definition in the GPL itself because courts have n't clarified it , but this is wrong .
The authors of the GPLv2 ( i.e .
RMS ) clearly intended it to cover as much as possible : any and all works following under the statutory definition .
It 's true that software copyright cases are rare so the lgegal system has n't developed the idea completely -- but that 's not the GPL 's duty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TFA claims that the term "derivative work" as used in GPLv2 requires further definition in the GPL itself because courts haven't clarified it, but this is wrong.
The authors of the GPLv2 (i.e.
RMS) clearly intended it to cover as much as possible: any and all works following under the statutory definition.
It's true that software copyright cases are rare so the lgegal system hasn't developed the idea completely -- but that's not the GPL's duty.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29766485</id>
	<title>Re:Conspiracy?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255684020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I think/hope you mean among the non-vocal majority who actually like him</p></div><p>I second this.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think/hope you mean among the non-vocal majority who actually like himI second this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think/hope you mean among the non-vocal majority who actually like himI second this.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759783</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29758879</id>
	<title>Doubts raised about the length of Rob Malda's Dick</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255628040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Two prominent sexual therapists have warned that CmrdTaco's penis is microscopic.  They claim that a real man's penis is more suited to the realities of sexually pleasuring his wife.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Two prominent sexual therapists have warned that CmrdTaco 's penis is microscopic .
They claim that a real man 's penis is more suited to the realities of sexually pleasuring his wife .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Two prominent sexual therapists have warned that CmrdTaco's penis is microscopic.
They claim that a real man's penis is more suited to the realities of sexually pleasuring his wife.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29761995</id>
	<title>Re:Missing the Point</title>
	<author>EvilBudMan</author>
	<datestamp>1255599480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>--All it takes is a mere technicality to disqualify the GPL from functioning at all, and the Free Software community is justifiably anxious about that, but the GPL has been successfully upheld in court time and time again, so I wouldn't worry.--</p><p>Just as long as Big Blue and some of the others are along for the ride. What if they decide to jump the bus? Of course worring about and not doing something about it will not get it fixed, but like my old man said if it ain't broke...don't fix it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>--All it takes is a mere technicality to disqualify the GPL from functioning at all , and the Free Software community is justifiably anxious about that , but the GPL has been successfully upheld in court time and time again , so I would n't worry.--Just as long as Big Blue and some of the others are along for the ride .
What if they decide to jump the bus ?
Of course worring about and not doing something about it will not get it fixed , but like my old man said if it ai n't broke...do n't fix it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>--All it takes is a mere technicality to disqualify the GPL from functioning at all, and the Free Software community is justifiably anxious about that, but the GPL has been successfully upheld in court time and time again, so I wouldn't worry.--Just as long as Big Blue and some of the others are along for the ride.
What if they decide to jump the bus?
Of course worring about and not doing something about it will not get it fixed, but like my old man said if it ain't broke...don't fix it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759347</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29760465</id>
	<title>Re:real issue, but is GPLv3 the solution?</title>
	<author>Lost Race</author>
	<datestamp>1255634760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>This is a real issue. For instance, I wrote a physics textbook, which is open-source, and I wrote a bunch of ruby and latex code that helps to produce the pdf from the latex sources, automatically handling some things relating to placement of figures on the page that are awkward to do with plain latex. My book, including the ruby and latex code, is under CC-BY-SA. I got an email from a guy at MSU who was writing a textbook, and had already started using my code to handle the illustrations. He wanted to check whether it was okay under the license, since he didn't intend to release his own book under a CC license. Well, my answer ended up being that I really didn't know whether it was okay or not.</p></div></blockquote><p>How could you not know whether it was OK? It's your code, so you make that decision! If you think it's OK, grant him a (possibly redundant) license; if you don't then don't, explain why you don't approve, and he can take his chances with the license he already has (CC-BY-SA) or refrain from publishing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a real issue .
For instance , I wrote a physics textbook , which is open-source , and I wrote a bunch of ruby and latex code that helps to produce the pdf from the latex sources , automatically handling some things relating to placement of figures on the page that are awkward to do with plain latex .
My book , including the ruby and latex code , is under CC-BY-SA .
I got an email from a guy at MSU who was writing a textbook , and had already started using my code to handle the illustrations .
He wanted to check whether it was okay under the license , since he did n't intend to release his own book under a CC license .
Well , my answer ended up being that I really did n't know whether it was okay or not.How could you not know whether it was OK ?
It 's your code , so you make that decision !
If you think it 's OK , grant him a ( possibly redundant ) license ; if you do n't then do n't , explain why you do n't approve , and he can take his chances with the license he already has ( CC-BY-SA ) or refrain from publishing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a real issue.
For instance, I wrote a physics textbook, which is open-source, and I wrote a bunch of ruby and latex code that helps to produce the pdf from the latex sources, automatically handling some things relating to placement of figures on the page that are awkward to do with plain latex.
My book, including the ruby and latex code, is under CC-BY-SA.
I got an email from a guy at MSU who was writing a textbook, and had already started using my code to handle the illustrations.
He wanted to check whether it was okay under the license, since he didn't intend to release his own book under a CC license.
Well, my answer ended up being that I really didn't know whether it was okay or not.How could you not know whether it was OK?
It's your code, so you make that decision!
If you think it's OK, grant him a (possibly redundant) license; if you don't then don't, explain why you don't approve, and he can take his chances with the license he already has (CC-BY-SA) or refrain from publishing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759285</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29764467</id>
	<title>Re:real issue, but is GPLv3 the solution?</title>
	<author>TangoMargarine</author>
	<datestamp>1255612320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenCola\_(drink)" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">OpenCola</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>OpenCola [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OpenCola [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759629</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29764565</id>
	<title>Re:Not as bad as it sounds!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255613160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well for starters. AGPL is self contradicting.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 9. Acceptance Not Required for Having Copies.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run a copy of the Program.</p><p>I will gladly take your code, run it and not accept the license.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well for starters .
AGPL is self contradicting .
          9 .
Acceptance Not Required for Having Copies .
        You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run a copy of the Program.I will gladly take your code , run it and not accept the license .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well for starters.
AGPL is self contradicting.
          9.
Acceptance Not Required for Having Copies.
        You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run a copy of the Program.I will gladly take your code, run it and not accept the license.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759905</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759365</id>
	<title>Re:Ideology?</title>
	<author>RichardJenkins</author>
	<datestamp>1255630200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>He doesn't have the legal right to do that, well not for the parts he didn't write anyway.</htmltext>
<tokenext>He does n't have the legal right to do that , well not for the parts he did n't write anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He doesn't have the legal right to do that, well not for the parts he didn't write anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759071</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29761421</id>
	<title>Re:Not as bad as it sounds!</title>
	<author>EvilBudMan</author>
	<datestamp>1255639800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can GPL web code? I thought that was just basically cut and paste from the truly free sites and edit. Now the back end, that's different. I could care less about HTML. If they want to use my stuff most of the time, it will drive more traffic to me, so why would I care unless it was some kind of Flash site or something like that?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can GPL web code ?
I thought that was just basically cut and paste from the truly free sites and edit .
Now the back end , that 's different .
I could care less about HTML .
If they want to use my stuff most of the time , it will drive more traffic to me , so why would I care unless it was some kind of Flash site or something like that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can GPL web code?
I thought that was just basically cut and paste from the truly free sites and edit.
Now the back end, that's different.
I could care less about HTML.
If they want to use my stuff most of the time, it will drive more traffic to me, so why would I care unless it was some kind of Flash site or something like that?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759905</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29763525</id>
	<title>Re:Not as bad as it sounds!</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1255606140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't hate it, I just find it to be rather childish and not really in the OSS spirit.</p><p>Of course, I have the nice simple solution of just remaking what you've done in a BSD/Apache/MIT licensed code base.  Don't worry, we'll get the same amount of contributions regardless of license, and your app will be able to use my work without worrying about some retarded restrictions preventing you from taking my changes and using them for yourself.</p><p>You don't want open source, you want someone else to do your work for you.</p><p>It is however completely fair.  So it my choice to put your software right along side all the other AGPL and GPLv3 software packages in my 'banned' software list.</p><p>You aren't being unfair, you are being misleading by claiming to be open but really just wanting someone to fix your bugs and give you feature enhancments.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't hate it , I just find it to be rather childish and not really in the OSS spirit.Of course , I have the nice simple solution of just remaking what you 've done in a BSD/Apache/MIT licensed code base .
Do n't worry , we 'll get the same amount of contributions regardless of license , and your app will be able to use my work without worrying about some retarded restrictions preventing you from taking my changes and using them for yourself.You do n't want open source , you want someone else to do your work for you.It is however completely fair .
So it my choice to put your software right along side all the other AGPL and GPLv3 software packages in my 'banned ' software list.You are n't being unfair , you are being misleading by claiming to be open but really just wanting someone to fix your bugs and give you feature enhancments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't hate it, I just find it to be rather childish and not really in the OSS spirit.Of course, I have the nice simple solution of just remaking what you've done in a BSD/Apache/MIT licensed code base.
Don't worry, we'll get the same amount of contributions regardless of license, and your app will be able to use my work without worrying about some retarded restrictions preventing you from taking my changes and using them for yourself.You don't want open source, you want someone else to do your work for you.It is however completely fair.
So it my choice to put your software right along side all the other AGPL and GPLv3 software packages in my 'banned' software list.You aren't being unfair, you are being misleading by claiming to be open but really just wanting someone to fix your bugs and give you feature enhancments.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759905</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759163</id>
	<title>More Lawyerese.</title>
	<author>sir lox elroy</author>
	<datestamp>1255629300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why can't people take responsibilities for themselves, do what is right in terms of copyright, and maybe then we wouldn't have lawyers nit picking us to death.  Or as the old joke goes:
"What is a thousand lawyers at the bottom of the sea?"
Answer: "A good start."</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why ca n't people take responsibilities for themselves , do what is right in terms of copyright , and maybe then we would n't have lawyers nit picking us to death .
Or as the old joke goes : " What is a thousand lawyers at the bottom of the sea ?
" Answer : " A good start .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why can't people take responsibilities for themselves, do what is right in terms of copyright, and maybe then we wouldn't have lawyers nit picking us to death.
Or as the old joke goes:
"What is a thousand lawyers at the bottom of the sea?
"
Answer: "A good start.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29764173</id>
	<title>Re:real issue, but is GPLv3 the solution?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255609980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the point you are missing is that with latex, the code *IS* the output.</p><p>Think of HTML where the content is mixed with the markup tags.  Since there is no compiled work all the secondary author is working with is the plain text commands that the first guy wrote.  Think:</p><p>[fancy custom made header tags]title</p><p>block of text [fancy picture tags]</p><p>block of text block of text</p><p>block of text block of text</p><p>Since the first guy has a copyright on all those [tags], even if the second guy replaces all of the "blocks of text" bits with his own writing, he is still using the first guy's copyrighted [tags].  This is assuming that the first guy made any non-trivial combination of tags/commands, which does sound like the case from his comments.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the point you are missing is that with latex , the code * IS * the output.Think of HTML where the content is mixed with the markup tags .
Since there is no compiled work all the secondary author is working with is the plain text commands that the first guy wrote .
Think : [ fancy custom made header tags ] titleblock of text [ fancy picture tags ] block of text block of textblock of text block of textSince the first guy has a copyright on all those [ tags ] , even if the second guy replaces all of the " blocks of text " bits with his own writing , he is still using the first guy 's copyrighted [ tags ] .
This is assuming that the first guy made any non-trivial combination of tags/commands , which does sound like the case from his comments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the point you are missing is that with latex, the code *IS* the output.Think of HTML where the content is mixed with the markup tags.
Since there is no compiled work all the secondary author is working with is the plain text commands that the first guy wrote.
Think:[fancy custom made header tags]titleblock of text [fancy picture tags]block of text block of textblock of text block of textSince the first guy has a copyright on all those [tags], even if the second guy replaces all of the "blocks of text" bits with his own writing, he is still using the first guy's copyrighted [tags].
This is assuming that the first guy made any non-trivial combination of tags/commands, which does sound like the case from his comments.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759953</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759477</id>
	<title>Distribute seems fine; derivative work, maybe not</title>
	<author>Wannabe Code Monkey</author>
	<datestamp>1255630740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the article:</p><blockquote><div><p>Some of the biggest concerns over using GPLv2 relate to the definitions of "derivative work" and "distribution," which Radcliffe says are used in GPLv2 "in a less than precise fashion."</p></div></blockquote><p>And...</p><blockquote><div><p>More recently penned licensing terms like GPLv3 and AGPLv3 avoid this kind of terminology, including interfering turns of phrase such as "to 'propagate' a work" or "to 'convey' a work."</p></div></blockquote><p>I don't understand how 'propagate' and 'convey' are any better than 'distribute'. It would seem to me that 'distribute' is the better term.</p><blockquote><div><p>"I think the critical thing to recognize in the differentiation between GPLv2, GPLv3, and AGPLv3 is that there was a very strong effort to purposefully distance ourselves from copyright laws," said Radcliffe. Copyright law is "not stable," he says, and it changes over time. Equally important is that copyright law varies from country to country.</p></div></blockquote><p>Now this, I understand. If you borrow the phrase 'derivative work', which is defined by copyright laws, and then the definition of 'derivative work' is changed in the copyright laws, does that mean the definition in the GPLv2 has also changed? Or is the definition of the GPLv2's 'derivative work' the same as that defined by copyright laws at the time the GPLv2 was drafted? Or is it some third definition not in any way tied to the copyright law definition? If it's the second or third meaning, then you're probably better off using a different phrase altogether.</p><p>I could also see a slight advantage to tying the GPL's definition of 'derivative work' and other phrases to whatever the current copyright law says they are: As copyright laws get more restrictive, the force of the GPL gets stronger. If copyright laws ever relax, then so too does the GPL. As I see it, as long as copyright laws are sane, the need for the GPL lessens.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the article : Some of the biggest concerns over using GPLv2 relate to the definitions of " derivative work " and " distribution , " which Radcliffe says are used in GPLv2 " in a less than precise fashion .
" And...More recently penned licensing terms like GPLv3 and AGPLv3 avoid this kind of terminology , including interfering turns of phrase such as " to 'propagate ' a work " or " to 'convey ' a work .
" I do n't understand how 'propagate ' and 'convey ' are any better than 'distribute' .
It would seem to me that 'distribute ' is the better term .
" I think the critical thing to recognize in the differentiation between GPLv2 , GPLv3 , and AGPLv3 is that there was a very strong effort to purposefully distance ourselves from copyright laws , " said Radcliffe .
Copyright law is " not stable , " he says , and it changes over time .
Equally important is that copyright law varies from country to country.Now this , I understand .
If you borrow the phrase 'derivative work ' , which is defined by copyright laws , and then the definition of 'derivative work ' is changed in the copyright laws , does that mean the definition in the GPLv2 has also changed ?
Or is the definition of the GPLv2 's 'derivative work ' the same as that defined by copyright laws at the time the GPLv2 was drafted ?
Or is it some third definition not in any way tied to the copyright law definition ?
If it 's the second or third meaning , then you 're probably better off using a different phrase altogether.I could also see a slight advantage to tying the GPL 's definition of 'derivative work ' and other phrases to whatever the current copyright law says they are : As copyright laws get more restrictive , the force of the GPL gets stronger .
If copyright laws ever relax , then so too does the GPL .
As I see it , as long as copyright laws are sane , the need for the GPL lessens .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the article:Some of the biggest concerns over using GPLv2 relate to the definitions of "derivative work" and "distribution," which Radcliffe says are used in GPLv2 "in a less than precise fashion.
"And...More recently penned licensing terms like GPLv3 and AGPLv3 avoid this kind of terminology, including interfering turns of phrase such as "to 'propagate' a work" or "to 'convey' a work.
"I don't understand how 'propagate' and 'convey' are any better than 'distribute'.
It would seem to me that 'distribute' is the better term.
"I think the critical thing to recognize in the differentiation between GPLv2, GPLv3, and AGPLv3 is that there was a very strong effort to purposefully distance ourselves from copyright laws," said Radcliffe.
Copyright law is "not stable," he says, and it changes over time.
Equally important is that copyright law varies from country to country.Now this, I understand.
If you borrow the phrase 'derivative work', which is defined by copyright laws, and then the definition of 'derivative work' is changed in the copyright laws, does that mean the definition in the GPLv2 has also changed?
Or is the definition of the GPLv2's 'derivative work' the same as that defined by copyright laws at the time the GPLv2 was drafted?
Or is it some third definition not in any way tied to the copyright law definition?
If it's the second or third meaning, then you're probably better off using a different phrase altogether.I could also see a slight advantage to tying the GPL's definition of 'derivative work' and other phrases to whatever the current copyright law says they are: As copyright laws get more restrictive, the force of the GPL gets stronger.
If copyright laws ever relax, then so too does the GPL.
As I see it, as long as copyright laws are sane, the need for the GPL lessens.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29758887</id>
	<title>Related</title>
	<author>schmidt349</author>
	<datestamp>1255628040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In other news, Darl McBride was seen dancing a little jig at the corner of 42nd and Broadway in New York City.</p><p>A source close to the situation informed Slashdot that he was in fact accepting small change to offset his legal fees for the next phase of his litigation against Linux users.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In other news , Darl McBride was seen dancing a little jig at the corner of 42nd and Broadway in New York City.A source close to the situation informed Slashdot that he was in fact accepting small change to offset his legal fees for the next phase of his litigation against Linux users .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In other news, Darl McBride was seen dancing a little jig at the corner of 42nd and Broadway in New York City.A source close to the situation informed Slashdot that he was in fact accepting small change to offset his legal fees for the next phase of his litigation against Linux users.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29760629</id>
	<title>Re:real issue, but is GPLv3 the solution?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255635720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bzzt.  AGPL certainly does.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bzzt .
AGPL certainly does .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bzzt.
AGPL certainly does.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759953</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759157</id>
	<title>Re:Conspiracy?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255629240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If Richard Stallman wanted to help open source, he would resign from the FSF.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Richard Stallman wanted to help open source , he would resign from the FSF .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Richard Stallman wanted to help open source, he would resign from the FSF.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29758915</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759789</id>
	<title>Of course it isn't responsible for open source</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255632060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's responsible for FOSS.</p><p>And note:</p><p>BSD is lame: compared to GPL it's a backwater. Great OS comes from it, but it is an also-ran. Because the license is "give it away!". What company would do that?</p><p>Perl is released under GPL too at v5. And the AL 2 is GPL3 compatible, so no difference: you can merge code between them and the rights and responsibilities are equal, so not very different from GPL3.</p><p>Poor examples.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's responsible for FOSS.And note : BSD is lame : compared to GPL it 's a backwater .
Great OS comes from it , but it is an also-ran .
Because the license is " give it away ! " .
What company would do that ? Perl is released under GPL too at v5 .
And the AL 2 is GPL3 compatible , so no difference : you can merge code between them and the rights and responsibilities are equal , so not very different from GPL3.Poor examples .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's responsible for FOSS.And note:BSD is lame: compared to GPL it's a backwater.
Great OS comes from it, but it is an also-ran.
Because the license is "give it away!".
What company would do that?Perl is released under GPL too at v5.
And the AL 2 is GPL3 compatible, so no difference: you can merge code between them and the rights and responsibilities are equal, so not very different from GPL3.Poor examples.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759161</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29760463</id>
	<title>Doubts Raised About Legal Status of OSI</title>
	<author>rubycodez</author>
	<datestamp>1255634760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>better story:  OSI attempts earth-shaking announcement about GPL to draw attention away from fact that their status as nonprofit in California is suspended.  Perhaps it was due to failure to file required tax documents (for California and U.S. IRS) for many years, that issue was discussed on Bruce Peren's now-defunct site Technocrat</p><p><a href="http://kepler.sos.ca.gov/corpdata/ShowAllList?QueryCorpNumber=C2224685" title="ca.gov">http://kepler.sos.ca.gov/corpdata/ShowAllList?QueryCorpNumber=C2224685</a> [ca.gov]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>better story : OSI attempts earth-shaking announcement about GPL to draw attention away from fact that their status as nonprofit in California is suspended .
Perhaps it was due to failure to file required tax documents ( for California and U.S. IRS ) for many years , that issue was discussed on Bruce Peren 's now-defunct site Technocrathttp : //kepler.sos.ca.gov/corpdata/ShowAllList ? QueryCorpNumber = C2224685 [ ca.gov ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>better story:  OSI attempts earth-shaking announcement about GPL to draw attention away from fact that their status as nonprofit in California is suspended.
Perhaps it was due to failure to file required tax documents (for California and U.S. IRS) for many years, that issue was discussed on Bruce Peren's now-defunct site Technocrathttp://kepler.sos.ca.gov/corpdata/ShowAllList?QueryCorpNumber=C2224685 [ca.gov]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759779</id>
	<title>Re:Cause and Effect</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255632000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>one more <a href="http://www.latex-project.org/" title="latex-project.org" rel="nofollow">very successful non-gcc project</a> [latex-project.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>one more very successful non-gcc project [ latex-project.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>one more very successful non-gcc project [latex-project.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759161</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759327</id>
	<title>Re:Doubts raised about the length of Rob Malda's D</title>
	<author>V!NCENT</author>
	<datestamp>1255630080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Two Slahdot users are dissing your cowardance is public and got viewed and laughed at by aprox. 1 million readers due to you lack of social influence.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Two Slahdot users are dissing your cowardance is public and got viewed and laughed at by aprox .
1 million readers due to you lack of social influence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Two Slahdot users are dissing your cowardance is public and got viewed and laughed at by aprox.
1 million readers due to you lack of social influence.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29758879</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759059</id>
	<title>Re:Conspiracy?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255628880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm wondering if this isn't just FUD to try to get people to switch to v3. Which is icky, but it did occur to me.</p></div><p>I doubt it, the crappy language choice in v2 was one of the reasons for writing v3 in the first place (other reasons being that they wanted explicit anti-patent language, that Tivo had pissed off all the extremist nuts, and maybe a few others I don't recall offhand).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm wondering if this is n't just FUD to try to get people to switch to v3 .
Which is icky , but it did occur to me.I doubt it , the crappy language choice in v2 was one of the reasons for writing v3 in the first place ( other reasons being that they wanted explicit anti-patent language , that Tivo had pissed off all the extremist nuts , and maybe a few others I do n't recall offhand ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm wondering if this isn't just FUD to try to get people to switch to v3.
Which is icky, but it did occur to me.I doubt it, the crappy language choice in v2 was one of the reasons for writing v3 in the first place (other reasons being that they wanted explicit anti-patent language, that Tivo had pissed off all the extremist nuts, and maybe a few others I don't recall offhand).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29758915</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29764115</id>
	<title>Re:Cause and Effect</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255609440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lisa was the one who claimed the rock repelled lions. Homer wanted to BUY it from her.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lisa was the one who claimed the rock repelled lions .
Homer wanted to BUY it from her .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lisa was the one who claimed the rock repelled lions.
Homer wanted to BUY it from her.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759161</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29760701</id>
	<title>Re:real issue, but is GPLv3 the solution?</title>
	<author>roystgnr</author>
	<datestamp>1255636140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Okay, let's say he wrote an "open rose" textbook then: both the typeset output and the "rose"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.tex files are freely redistributable.  Someone who wants to produce similar output doesn't have to reverse engineer a binary PDF, they can simply look at the original "rose code", which like most other "rose code" is written in a Turing-complete language.</p><p>You can feel free to call it whatever you want, but it looks to me like a "rose by any other name" here is a synonym for "source".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay , let 's say he wrote an " open rose " textbook then : both the typeset output and the " rose " .tex files are freely redistributable .
Someone who wants to produce similar output does n't have to reverse engineer a binary PDF , they can simply look at the original " rose code " , which like most other " rose code " is written in a Turing-complete language.You can feel free to call it whatever you want , but it looks to me like a " rose by any other name " here is a synonym for " source " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Okay, let's say he wrote an "open rose" textbook then: both the typeset output and the "rose" .tex files are freely redistributable.
Someone who wants to produce similar output doesn't have to reverse engineer a binary PDF, they can simply look at the original "rose code", which like most other "rose code" is written in a Turing-complete language.You can feel free to call it whatever you want, but it looks to me like a "rose by any other name" here is a synonym for "source".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759629</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759185</id>
	<title>Re:Cause and Effect</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255629360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's an interesting thought. I remember that Larry Wall once mentioned that he liked the intentionally vague license terms "under the same terms as Perl itself" that can be found on many CPAN modules, because it allows evolution.</p><p>Now Perl 5 is dual licensed under GPL and Artistic License version 1, and Perl 6 is AL 2.0.<br>Once Perl 6 is the generally accepted version of Perl, a whole bunch of CPAN modules implicitly change their licensing terms.</p><p>It sounds risky, but I don't think it's a bad thing: the authors explicitly decided to follow the communities' consensus on the current license.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's an interesting thought .
I remember that Larry Wall once mentioned that he liked the intentionally vague license terms " under the same terms as Perl itself " that can be found on many CPAN modules , because it allows evolution.Now Perl 5 is dual licensed under GPL and Artistic License version 1 , and Perl 6 is AL 2.0.Once Perl 6 is the generally accepted version of Perl , a whole bunch of CPAN modules implicitly change their licensing terms.It sounds risky , but I do n't think it 's a bad thing : the authors explicitly decided to follow the communities ' consensus on the current license .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's an interesting thought.
I remember that Larry Wall once mentioned that he liked the intentionally vague license terms "under the same terms as Perl itself" that can be found on many CPAN modules, because it allows evolution.Now Perl 5 is dual licensed under GPL and Artistic License version 1, and Perl 6 is AL 2.0.Once Perl 6 is the generally accepted version of Perl, a whole bunch of CPAN modules implicitly change their licensing terms.It sounds risky, but I don't think it's a bad thing: the authors explicitly decided to follow the communities' consensus on the current license.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29758925</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759953</id>
	<title>Re:real issue, but is GPLv3 the solution?</title>
	<author>ObsessiveMathsFreak</author>
	<datestamp>1255632660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I got an email from a guy at MSU who was writing a textbook, and had already started using my code to handle the illustrations. He wanted to check whether it was okay under the license, since he didn't intend to release his own book under a CC license.</p></div></blockquote><p>No open source licence of any kind has ever put restrictions on the <i>output</i> of a program or of code. If he uses your code to make illustrations, those are his illustrations, as if they were drawn by hand, and he can do with or licence them as he pleases. If this wasn't the case, then every picture ever made with the GIMP would be GPL'd!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I got an email from a guy at MSU who was writing a textbook , and had already started using my code to handle the illustrations .
He wanted to check whether it was okay under the license , since he did n't intend to release his own book under a CC license.No open source licence of any kind has ever put restrictions on the output of a program or of code .
If he uses your code to make illustrations , those are his illustrations , as if they were drawn by hand , and he can do with or licence them as he pleases .
If this was n't the case , then every picture ever made with the GIMP would be GPL 'd !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I got an email from a guy at MSU who was writing a textbook, and had already started using my code to handle the illustrations.
He wanted to check whether it was okay under the license, since he didn't intend to release his own book under a CC license.No open source licence of any kind has ever put restrictions on the output of a program or of code.
If he uses your code to make illustrations, those are his illustrations, as if they were drawn by hand, and he can do with or licence them as he pleases.
If this wasn't the case, then every picture ever made with the GIMP would be GPL'd!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759285</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759011</id>
	<title>Naturally this would be said by the OSI.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255628640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The plan was to create a proprietary-destroying license that spreads by itself and becomes more powerful the more it's used, but you couldn't do it all at once, because it would be too shocking a change to introduce. Hence, the GPL v2 was created as an interim step to soften people up, although RMS's goal was always v3. AGPLv3 was just plugging the gap he forgot. The plan hasn't been proceeding as fast as they hoped, so they seek to speed it up by spreading fear about v2.</p><p>"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." - chiseled over the bearded guy's bed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The plan was to create a proprietary-destroying license that spreads by itself and becomes more powerful the more it 's used , but you could n't do it all at once , because it would be too shocking a change to introduce .
Hence , the GPL v2 was created as an interim step to soften people up , although RMS 's goal was always v3 .
AGPLv3 was just plugging the gap he forgot .
The plan has n't been proceeding as fast as they hoped , so they seek to speed it up by spreading fear about v2 .
" First they ignore you , then they laugh at you , then they fight you , then you win .
" - chiseled over the bearded guy 's bed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The plan was to create a proprietary-destroying license that spreads by itself and becomes more powerful the more it's used, but you couldn't do it all at once, because it would be too shocking a change to introduce.
Hence, the GPL v2 was created as an interim step to soften people up, although RMS's goal was always v3.
AGPLv3 was just plugging the gap he forgot.
The plan hasn't been proceeding as fast as they hoped, so they seek to speed it up by spreading fear about v2.
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
" - chiseled over the bearded guy's bed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759161</id>
	<title>Re:Cause and Effect</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255629300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Maybe the way it was written is why FOSS is where it's at? Might not be such a bad idea to keep it around?</p></div><p>Then again, maybe the GPL <a href="http://www.freebsd.org/" title="freebsd.org">is</a> [freebsd.org] <a href="http://www.python.org/" title="python.org">not</a> [python.org] <a href="http://www.apache.org/" title="apache.org">responsible</a> [apache.org] for great free software and open source software being written.</p><p>Don't get me wrong, I think developers should be allowed to pick their license of choice, including GPL. But there are plenty of examples of free software and open source software being highly successful and widely used that are not GPL'd.</p><p>The assumption that the GPL is responsible for the success of FOSS reminds me of a Simpsons episode where Homer is carrying a rock around that supposedly repels lions (or something). Lisa says, "That's ridiculous! What makes you think that repels lions?" and Homer replies, "You don't see any lions around, do you?"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe the way it was written is why FOSS is where it 's at ?
Might not be such a bad idea to keep it around ? Then again , maybe the GPL is [ freebsd.org ] not [ python.org ] responsible [ apache.org ] for great free software and open source software being written.Do n't get me wrong , I think developers should be allowed to pick their license of choice , including GPL .
But there are plenty of examples of free software and open source software being highly successful and widely used that are not GPL 'd.The assumption that the GPL is responsible for the success of FOSS reminds me of a Simpsons episode where Homer is carrying a rock around that supposedly repels lions ( or something ) .
Lisa says , " That 's ridiculous !
What makes you think that repels lions ?
" and Homer replies , " You do n't see any lions around , do you ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe the way it was written is why FOSS is where it's at?
Might not be such a bad idea to keep it around?Then again, maybe the GPL is [freebsd.org] not [python.org] responsible [apache.org] for great free software and open source software being written.Don't get me wrong, I think developers should be allowed to pick their license of choice, including GPL.
But there are plenty of examples of free software and open source software being highly successful and widely used that are not GPL'd.The assumption that the GPL is responsible for the success of FOSS reminds me of a Simpsons episode where Homer is carrying a rock around that supposedly repels lions (or something).
Lisa says, "That's ridiculous!
What makes you think that repels lions?
" and Homer replies, "You don't see any lions around, do you?
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29758925</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29761569</id>
	<title>Re:Conspiracy?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255597320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I think/hope you mean among the non-vocal majority who actually like him<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:) Stallman has done a HELL OF A LOT for the IT industry, and ethical/free software in general. Lately there seems to be a vocal group out to generate hate towards him, but I like to think his record still more than negates their pitiful smear campaign.</p></div></blockquote><p>It might have something to do with his amazing ability to stick his foot in his mouth every time he speaks.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think/hope you mean among the non-vocal majority who actually like him : ) Stallman has done a HELL OF A LOT for the IT industry , and ethical/free software in general .
Lately there seems to be a vocal group out to generate hate towards him , but I like to think his record still more than negates their pitiful smear campaign.It might have something to do with his amazing ability to stick his foot in his mouth every time he speaks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think/hope you mean among the non-vocal majority who actually like him :) Stallman has done a HELL OF A LOT for the IT industry, and ethical/free software in general.
Lately there seems to be a vocal group out to generate hate towards him, but I like to think his record still more than negates their pitiful smear campaign.It might have something to do with his amazing ability to stick his foot in his mouth every time he speaks.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759783</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29763149</id>
	<title>Re:real issue, but is GPLv3 the solution?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255603920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You didn"t read all of the GP's post, especially this:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>My code generates various boilerplate in its output, some of which is text that is visible to the reader, so it's under my copyright and license.</p></div><p>This means that the output of his code does fall under the GPL, and is itself GPL. It is the same problem as that faced by Bison (the GNU parser generator), which, since it outputs a large amount of generic parsing code in its output, had to have a special exception made so the output would not fall under GPL</p><p><div class="quote"><p>As of Bison version 1.24, we have changed the distribution terms for yyparse to permit using Bison's output in nonfree programs. Formerly, Bison parsers could be used only in programs that were free software.</p><p>The other GNU programming tools, such as the GNU C compiler, have never had such a requirement. They could always be used for nonfree software. The reason Bison was different was not due to a special policy decision; it resulted from applying the usual General Public License to all of the Bison source code.</p><p>The output of the Bison utility--the Bison parser file--contains a verbatim copy of a sizable piece of Bison, which is the code for the yyparse function. (The actions from your grammar are inserted into this function at one point, but the rest of the function is not changed.) When we applied the GPL terms to the code for yyparse, the effect was to restrict the use of Bison output to free software.</p> </div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You didn " t read all of the GP 's post , especially this : My code generates various boilerplate in its output , some of which is text that is visible to the reader , so it 's under my copyright and license.This means that the output of his code does fall under the GPL , and is itself GPL .
It is the same problem as that faced by Bison ( the GNU parser generator ) , which , since it outputs a large amount of generic parsing code in its output , had to have a special exception made so the output would not fall under GPLAs of Bison version 1.24 , we have changed the distribution terms for yyparse to permit using Bison 's output in nonfree programs .
Formerly , Bison parsers could be used only in programs that were free software.The other GNU programming tools , such as the GNU C compiler , have never had such a requirement .
They could always be used for nonfree software .
The reason Bison was different was not due to a special policy decision ; it resulted from applying the usual General Public License to all of the Bison source code.The output of the Bison utility--the Bison parser file--contains a verbatim copy of a sizable piece of Bison , which is the code for the yyparse function .
( The actions from your grammar are inserted into this function at one point , but the rest of the function is not changed .
) When we applied the GPL terms to the code for yyparse , the effect was to restrict the use of Bison output to free software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You didn"t read all of the GP's post, especially this:My code generates various boilerplate in its output, some of which is text that is visible to the reader, so it's under my copyright and license.This means that the output of his code does fall under the GPL, and is itself GPL.
It is the same problem as that faced by Bison (the GNU parser generator), which, since it outputs a large amount of generic parsing code in its output, had to have a special exception made so the output would not fall under GPLAs of Bison version 1.24, we have changed the distribution terms for yyparse to permit using Bison's output in nonfree programs.
Formerly, Bison parsers could be used only in programs that were free software.The other GNU programming tools, such as the GNU C compiler, have never had such a requirement.
They could always be used for nonfree software.
The reason Bison was different was not due to a special policy decision; it resulted from applying the usual General Public License to all of the Bison source code.The output of the Bison utility--the Bison parser file--contains a verbatim copy of a sizable piece of Bison, which is the code for the yyparse function.
(The actions from your grammar are inserted into this function at one point, but the rest of the function is not changed.
) When we applied the GPL terms to the code for yyparse, the effect was to restrict the use of Bison output to free software. 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759953</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29767263</id>
	<title>Re:Every license is ambiguous</title>
	<author>dido</author>
	<datestamp>1255697820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The <em>judge</em> can <b>never</b> compel you to release the source code for your infringing app as part of the judgment against you, should you be found in violation of the GPL.  If you have been found guilty of violating the GPL in a court of law, all the judge can really do is slap you in the same way Jammie Thomas got slapped: statutory and punitive damages and preventing you from continuing to distribute your infringing work.  Violating the GPL amounts to copyright infringement, and would be punished accordingly.  Thing is, there has never yet been a case involving the GPL where this point has been reached: all defendants so far settled before judgment could be rendered (in many cases, even before the case even gets to a court of law).  Now, the plaintiffs (most notably if they are the Free Software Foundation) <em>may</em> ask you to release the source code, so you are no longer in violation of the license, but only the threats of the continuation of the lawsuit, the negative publicity one will receive, and the likely judgment at the end are what compel you to obey.  However, there's no law that says that they should request source code opening as the settlement, and if you're treading on the copyright of someone other than the FSF the plaintiff could very well ask you to do just about anything instead, with compliance similarly enforced with the threat of the continuation of the lawsuits and their consequences.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The judge can never compel you to release the source code for your infringing app as part of the judgment against you , should you be found in violation of the GPL .
If you have been found guilty of violating the GPL in a court of law , all the judge can really do is slap you in the same way Jammie Thomas got slapped : statutory and punitive damages and preventing you from continuing to distribute your infringing work .
Violating the GPL amounts to copyright infringement , and would be punished accordingly .
Thing is , there has never yet been a case involving the GPL where this point has been reached : all defendants so far settled before judgment could be rendered ( in many cases , even before the case even gets to a court of law ) .
Now , the plaintiffs ( most notably if they are the Free Software Foundation ) may ask you to release the source code , so you are no longer in violation of the license , but only the threats of the continuation of the lawsuit , the negative publicity one will receive , and the likely judgment at the end are what compel you to obey .
However , there 's no law that says that they should request source code opening as the settlement , and if you 're treading on the copyright of someone other than the FSF the plaintiff could very well ask you to do just about anything instead , with compliance similarly enforced with the threat of the continuation of the lawsuits and their consequences .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The judge can never compel you to release the source code for your infringing app as part of the judgment against you, should you be found in violation of the GPL.
If you have been found guilty of violating the GPL in a court of law, all the judge can really do is slap you in the same way Jammie Thomas got slapped: statutory and punitive damages and preventing you from continuing to distribute your infringing work.
Violating the GPL amounts to copyright infringement, and would be punished accordingly.
Thing is, there has never yet been a case involving the GPL where this point has been reached: all defendants so far settled before judgment could be rendered (in many cases, even before the case even gets to a court of law).
Now, the plaintiffs (most notably if they are the Free Software Foundation) may ask you to release the source code, so you are no longer in violation of the license, but only the threats of the continuation of the lawsuit, the negative publicity one will receive, and the likely judgment at the end are what compel you to obey.
However, there's no law that says that they should request source code opening as the settlement, and if you're treading on the copyright of someone other than the FSF the plaintiff could very well ask you to do just about anything instead, with compliance similarly enforced with the threat of the continuation of the lawsuits and their consequences.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29758953</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29765219</id>
	<title>Re:Conspiracy?</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1255620000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What has he done?  Pissed people off?  Ran people away from OSS?<br>He has a big loud mouth, thats why he seems like an outstanding contributor.</p><p>Others have done more for far less recognition and with far more sanity.</p><p>I recognize he's done a lot for the OSS community, but the majority of it has been scaring people away.  You are either part of his cult, or you aren't.  If you are, you probably won't be next week when he add his new rant about how software can be made more free by using his restrictions instead of someone else.  For those of us who aren't with him, we constitute the enemy of the state, he has no middle ground, and we when not laughing at him, are wincing at what he's perverting the idea of OSS into and crying about the number of idiots who choose to follow him.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What has he done ?
Pissed people off ?
Ran people away from OSS ? He has a big loud mouth , thats why he seems like an outstanding contributor.Others have done more for far less recognition and with far more sanity.I recognize he 's done a lot for the OSS community , but the majority of it has been scaring people away .
You are either part of his cult , or you are n't .
If you are , you probably wo n't be next week when he add his new rant about how software can be made more free by using his restrictions instead of someone else .
For those of us who are n't with him , we constitute the enemy of the state , he has no middle ground , and we when not laughing at him , are wincing at what he 's perverting the idea of OSS into and crying about the number of idiots who choose to follow him .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What has he done?
Pissed people off?
Ran people away from OSS?He has a big loud mouth, thats why he seems like an outstanding contributor.Others have done more for far less recognition and with far more sanity.I recognize he's done a lot for the OSS community, but the majority of it has been scaring people away.
You are either part of his cult, or you aren't.
If you are, you probably won't be next week when he add his new rant about how software can be made more free by using his restrictions instead of someone else.
For those of us who aren't with him, we constitute the enemy of the state, he has no middle ground, and we when not laughing at him, are wincing at what he's perverting the idea of OSS into and crying about the number of idiots who choose to follow him.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759783</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759141</id>
	<title>If language in GPLv3 is better</title>
	<author>Darth Sdlavrot</author>
	<datestamp>1255629180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But you don't like the patent provision, why not strike the patent language and call it GPLv2.1</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But you do n't like the patent provision , why not strike the patent language and call it GPLv2.1</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But you don't like the patent provision, why not strike the patent language and call it GPLv2.1</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29758875</id>
	<title>BSD rules</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255627980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Should have used BSD rather than the <a href="http://goatse.fr/" title="goatse.fr" rel="nofollow">Goatse</a> [goatse.fr] public license.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Should have used BSD rather than the Goatse [ goatse.fr ] public license .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Should have used BSD rather than the Goatse [goatse.fr] public license.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759209</id>
	<title>Re:Ideology?</title>
	<author>Epsillon</author>
	<datestamp>1255629480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Linus is probably one of the most pragmatic members of the open source movement, along with being a self-proclaimed bastard (you say that like it's a bad thing). Linus will only think about moving from GPLv2 if Linus thinks it's necessary or beneficial, not because some pen-pusher, pundit or journo tells him to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Linus is probably one of the most pragmatic members of the open source movement , along with being a self-proclaimed bastard ( you say that like it 's a bad thing ) .
Linus will only think about moving from GPLv2 if Linus thinks it 's necessary or beneficial , not because some pen-pusher , pundit or journo tells him to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Linus is probably one of the most pragmatic members of the open source movement, along with being a self-proclaimed bastard (you say that like it's a bad thing).
Linus will only think about moving from GPLv2 if Linus thinks it's necessary or beneficial, not because some pen-pusher, pundit or journo tells him to.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759071</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759245</id>
	<title>Re:Conspiracy?</title>
	<author>DAldredge</author>
	<datestamp>1255629660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nice people don't want to punish those they disagree with.

"If programmers deserve to be rewarded for creating innovative programs, by the same token they deserve to be punished if they restrict the use of these programs."

Richard Stallman</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nice people do n't want to punish those they disagree with .
" If programmers deserve to be rewarded for creating innovative programs , by the same token they deserve to be punished if they restrict the use of these programs .
" Richard Stallman</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nice people don't want to punish those they disagree with.
"If programmers deserve to be rewarded for creating innovative programs, by the same token they deserve to be punished if they restrict the use of these programs.
"

Richard Stallman</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29758915</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759985</id>
	<title>Re:Conspiracy?</title>
	<author>Tetsujin</author>
	<datestamp>1255632840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If Richard Stallman wanted to help open source, he would resign from the FSF.</p></div><p>He doesn't want to help "open source", he wants to help "free software".<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If Richard Stallman wanted to help open source , he would resign from the FSF.He does n't want to help " open source " , he wants to help " free software " .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Richard Stallman wanted to help open source, he would resign from the FSF.He doesn't want to help "open source", he wants to help "free software".
:)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759157</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29762659</id>
	<title>Re:Not as bad as it sounds!</title>
	<author>Lord Kano</author>
	<datestamp>1255601820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If anyone who uses the software is entitled to get the source, you'll see a lot less Free Software getting used for business. While you may think that's a good thing, it's not. A lot of free software is developed by businesses and if they're chased back to Windows all of their development stops.</p><p>If you use a LAMP based system to host a web app, all of a sudden every user will have the right to the code. That is all the reason businesses would need to go IIS.</p><p>LK</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If anyone who uses the software is entitled to get the source , you 'll see a lot less Free Software getting used for business .
While you may think that 's a good thing , it 's not .
A lot of free software is developed by businesses and if they 're chased back to Windows all of their development stops.If you use a LAMP based system to host a web app , all of a sudden every user will have the right to the code .
That is all the reason businesses would need to go IIS.LK</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If anyone who uses the software is entitled to get the source, you'll see a lot less Free Software getting used for business.
While you may think that's a good thing, it's not.
A lot of free software is developed by businesses and if they're chased back to Windows all of their development stops.If you use a LAMP based system to host a web app, all of a sudden every user will have the right to the code.
That is all the reason businesses would need to go IIS.LK</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759905</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29761787</id>
	<title>Re:real issue, but is GPLv3 the solution?</title>
	<author>EvilBudMan</author>
	<datestamp>1255598400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>--I also don't quite understand how they think they can bypass the fact that various countries have various inconsistent and ambiguous definitions of a derived work.--</p><p>I think it would be OK in France but not OK in the US, but then again I'm no expert, and the laws constantly change just behind the times. We'll way behind the times in many instances.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>--I also do n't quite understand how they think they can bypass the fact that various countries have various inconsistent and ambiguous definitions of a derived work.--I think it would be OK in France but not OK in the US , but then again I 'm no expert , and the laws constantly change just behind the times .
We 'll way behind the times in many instances .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>--I also don't quite understand how they think they can bypass the fact that various countries have various inconsistent and ambiguous definitions of a derived work.--I think it would be OK in France but not OK in the US, but then again I'm no expert, and the laws constantly change just behind the times.
We'll way behind the times in many instances.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759285</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29761825</id>
	<title>Re:Missing the Point</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1255598520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The point of the GPL was that it was very simple and broad-sweeping. Naturally this does make it vulnerable to attack in the sense that the legal system might feel threatened by the massive impact of such a game-changing license; copyleft practically redefines IP law in a way that those in the legal institution (eg lawyers, judges, lawmakers, and the business interests that pay for them) don't acknowledge, understand, or otherwise feel comfortable with because they don't feel in control.</p></div></blockquote><p>What the hell are you talking about?  Its no different than any other software license.  The only thing different about GPL versus other licenses is that it pushes for the Stallman cult agenda rather than for money.</p><p>It didn't 'change the game' in any way what so ever.  Just because every douchebag and his brother in collage and highschool wrote some app and made it GPL so they could be cool with their geek friends doesn't mean its changed the world.</p><p>A mere technicality could disqualify ANY license agreement or contract, welcome to the way the law works.  Again, GPL is not unique.</p><p>Why is it GPL trolls always think the GPL is this unique world changing, nothing like it in existence license?</p><p>What applies to other licenses applies to GPL and what applies to GPL applies to other licenses.</p><p>You missed the point, GPL is not unique, anything used to cripple GPL will cripple other software licenses as well, MS and friends are in no hurry to fuck up licenses in general.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The point of the GPL was that it was very simple and broad-sweeping .
Naturally this does make it vulnerable to attack in the sense that the legal system might feel threatened by the massive impact of such a game-changing license ; copyleft practically redefines IP law in a way that those in the legal institution ( eg lawyers , judges , lawmakers , and the business interests that pay for them ) do n't acknowledge , understand , or otherwise feel comfortable with because they do n't feel in control.What the hell are you talking about ?
Its no different than any other software license .
The only thing different about GPL versus other licenses is that it pushes for the Stallman cult agenda rather than for money.It did n't 'change the game ' in any way what so ever .
Just because every douchebag and his brother in collage and highschool wrote some app and made it GPL so they could be cool with their geek friends does n't mean its changed the world.A mere technicality could disqualify ANY license agreement or contract , welcome to the way the law works .
Again , GPL is not unique.Why is it GPL trolls always think the GPL is this unique world changing , nothing like it in existence license ? What applies to other licenses applies to GPL and what applies to GPL applies to other licenses.You missed the point , GPL is not unique , anything used to cripple GPL will cripple other software licenses as well , MS and friends are in no hurry to fuck up licenses in general .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The point of the GPL was that it was very simple and broad-sweeping.
Naturally this does make it vulnerable to attack in the sense that the legal system might feel threatened by the massive impact of such a game-changing license; copyleft practically redefines IP law in a way that those in the legal institution (eg lawyers, judges, lawmakers, and the business interests that pay for them) don't acknowledge, understand, or otherwise feel comfortable with because they don't feel in control.What the hell are you talking about?
Its no different than any other software license.
The only thing different about GPL versus other licenses is that it pushes for the Stallman cult agenda rather than for money.It didn't 'change the game' in any way what so ever.
Just because every douchebag and his brother in collage and highschool wrote some app and made it GPL so they could be cool with their geek friends doesn't mean its changed the world.A mere technicality could disqualify ANY license agreement or contract, welcome to the way the law works.
Again, GPL is not unique.Why is it GPL trolls always think the GPL is this unique world changing, nothing like it in existence license?What applies to other licenses applies to GPL and what applies to GPL applies to other licenses.You missed the point, GPL is not unique, anything used to cripple GPL will cripple other software licenses as well, MS and friends are in no hurry to fuck up licenses in general.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759347</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29762439</id>
	<title>Quote</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255601100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The FSF said 'FFS'.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The FSF said 'FFS' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The FSF said 'FFS'.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759375</id>
	<title>Re:Naturally this would be said by the OSI.</title>
	<author>ClosedSource</author>
	<datestamp>1255630260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, RMS just didn't anticipate the TIVO scenario.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , RMS just did n't anticipate the TIVO scenario .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, RMS just didn't anticipate the TIVO scenario.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759011</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1549228_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29761273
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759953
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759285
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1549228_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29761783
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759285
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1549228_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759365
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759071
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1549228_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29768317
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759629
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759285
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1549228_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29762683
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759123
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1549228_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29761217
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759953
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759285
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1549228_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29761787
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759285
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1549228_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29761995
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759347
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1549228_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29764115
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759161
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29758925
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1549228_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29765457
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759285
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1549228_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29764431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759783
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29758915
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1549228_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29766485
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759783
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29758915
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1549228_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29761559
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759059
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29758915
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1549228_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29764565
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759905
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759295
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29758873
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1549228_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29762383
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759393
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1549228_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29760465
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759285
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1549228_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29766885
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759953
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759285
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1549228_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759985
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759157
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29758915
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1549228_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29763525
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759905
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759295
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29758873
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1549228_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759375
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759011
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1549228_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29765219
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759783
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29758915
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1549228_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759245
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29758915
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1549228_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29760153
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759123
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1549228_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29760701
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759629
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759285
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1549228_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29763201
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759905
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759295
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29758873
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1549228_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29765335
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759285
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1549228_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759779
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759161
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29758925
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1549228_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29761061
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759285
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1549228_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29761421
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759905
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759295
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29758873
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1549228_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29760697
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759953
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759285
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1549228_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759421
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759157
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29758915
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1549228_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29761825
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759347
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1549228_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759967
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759477
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1549228_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29764211
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759953
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759285
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1549228_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759889
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759285
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1549228_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29762287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759629
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759285
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1549228_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759789
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759161
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29758925
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1549228_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29760629
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759953
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759285
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1549228_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29764467
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759629
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759285
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1549228_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29764173
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759953
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759285
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1549228_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29763149
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759953
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759285
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1549228_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759185
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29758925
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1549228_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29760843
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759285
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1549228_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29762659
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759905
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759295
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29758873
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1549228_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29760785
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759905
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759295
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29758873
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1549228_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29760971
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759161
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29758925
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1549228_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29761569
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759783
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29758915
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1549228_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759327
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29758879
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1549228_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29760139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759163
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1549228_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29767263
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29758953
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1549228_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29761697
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759209
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759071
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1549228_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29760051
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29758953
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1549228_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29760533
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759905
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759295
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29758873
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1549228_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29761399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759161
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29758925
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1549228_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29765311
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759239
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759071
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_15_1549228.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759393
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29762383
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_15_1549228.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759011
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759375
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_15_1549228.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29760463
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_15_1549228.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759123
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29762683
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29760153
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_15_1549228.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29758873
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759295
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759905
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29763525
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29764565
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29762659
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29760533
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29763201
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29760785
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29761421
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_15_1549228.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29758887
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_15_1549228.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29761099
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_15_1549228.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759347
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29761825
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29761995
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_15_1549228.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29758869
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_15_1549228.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29758879
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759327
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_15_1549228.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759477
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759967
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_15_1549228.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29758925
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759185
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759161
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29764115
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29760971
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29761399
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759779
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759789
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_15_1549228.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759079
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_15_1549228.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29758875
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_15_1549228.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29760191
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_15_1549228.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759071
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759365
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759209
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29761697
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759239
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29765311
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_15_1549228.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29758915
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759059
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29761559
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759245
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759783
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29765219
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29764431
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29766485
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29761569
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759157
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759421
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759985
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_15_1549228.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759285
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29765335
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29760465
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29760843
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759629
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29768317
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29762287
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29764467
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29760701
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29765457
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759953
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29764173
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29764211
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29760697
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29760629
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29766885
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29761273
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29763149
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29761217
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29761061
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759889
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29761783
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29761787
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_15_1549228.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29759163
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29760139
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_15_1549228.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29758953
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29767263
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1549228.29760051
</commentlist>
</conversation>
