<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_20_1616220</id>
	<title>MySQL Cofounder Says Oracle Should Sell Database To a Neutral 3d Party</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1256056200000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>alphadogg writes <i>"Oracle should resolve antitrust concerns over its acquisition of Sun Microsystems by <a href="https://www.networkworld.com/news/2009/101909-mysql-cofounder-says-oracle-should.html">selling open-source database MySQL to a suitable third party</a>, its cofounder and creator <a href="http://monty-says.blogspot.com/2009/10/press-release-concerning-oraclesun.html">Michael 'Monty' Widenius said in a blog post</a> on Monday. Oracle's $7.4 billion acquisition of Sun is currently being held up by an investigation by the European Commission. The Commission's main concern seems to be MySQL, which was acquired by Sun in January 2008 for $1 billion. A takeover by the world's leading proprietary database company of the world's leading open source database company compels the regulator to closely examine the effects on the European market, according to remarks made by Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes last month. The key objective by Widenius is to find a home outside Oracle for MySQL, where the database can be developed and compete with existing products, including Oracle's, according to Florian Mueller, a former MySQL shareholder who is currently working with Monty Program AB on this matter."</i> <a href="http://keionline.org/ec-mysql">Richard Stallman agrees</a>.</htmltext>
<tokenext>alphadogg writes " Oracle should resolve antitrust concerns over its acquisition of Sun Microsystems by selling open-source database MySQL to a suitable third party , its cofounder and creator Michael 'Monty ' Widenius said in a blog post on Monday .
Oracle 's $ 7.4 billion acquisition of Sun is currently being held up by an investigation by the European Commission .
The Commission 's main concern seems to be MySQL , which was acquired by Sun in January 2008 for $ 1 billion .
A takeover by the world 's leading proprietary database company of the world 's leading open source database company compels the regulator to closely examine the effects on the European market , according to remarks made by Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes last month .
The key objective by Widenius is to find a home outside Oracle for MySQL , where the database can be developed and compete with existing products , including Oracle 's , according to Florian Mueller , a former MySQL shareholder who is currently working with Monty Program AB on this matter .
" Richard Stallman agrees .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>alphadogg writes "Oracle should resolve antitrust concerns over its acquisition of Sun Microsystems by selling open-source database MySQL to a suitable third party, its cofounder and creator Michael 'Monty' Widenius said in a blog post on Monday.
Oracle's $7.4 billion acquisition of Sun is currently being held up by an investigation by the European Commission.
The Commission's main concern seems to be MySQL, which was acquired by Sun in January 2008 for $1 billion.
A takeover by the world's leading proprietary database company of the world's leading open source database company compels the regulator to closely examine the effects on the European market, according to remarks made by Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes last month.
The key objective by Widenius is to find a home outside Oracle for MySQL, where the database can be developed and compete with existing products, including Oracle's, according to Florian Mueller, a former MySQL shareholder who is currently working with Monty Program AB on this matter.
" Richard Stallman agrees.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29811603</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe I'm missing something..</title>
	<author>samkass</author>
	<datestamp>1256065560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So RMS's basic assertion is that GPL itself wouldn't work as a viable way to develop a package like MySQL, and couldn't compete against someone with a proprietary license?  Or am I missing something?</p><p>The whole point of the MySQL sale was that Sun paid money to acquire the copyright and trademark assets.  If some external group wants to raise a billion dollars and buy the product back they can do what they'd like (including giving it away).  Otherwise, they took the money and that's what happens.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So RMS 's basic assertion is that GPL itself would n't work as a viable way to develop a package like MySQL , and could n't compete against someone with a proprietary license ?
Or am I missing something ? The whole point of the MySQL sale was that Sun paid money to acquire the copyright and trademark assets .
If some external group wants to raise a billion dollars and buy the product back they can do what they 'd like ( including giving it away ) .
Otherwise , they took the money and that 's what happens .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So RMS's basic assertion is that GPL itself wouldn't work as a viable way to develop a package like MySQL, and couldn't compete against someone with a proprietary license?
Or am I missing something?The whole point of the MySQL sale was that Sun paid money to acquire the copyright and trademark assets.
If some external group wants to raise a billion dollars and buy the product back they can do what they'd like (including giving it away).
Otherwise, they took the money and that's what happens.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810481</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29812387</id>
	<title>Re:Held up?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256068200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are missing that in reality, outside your US-centric dreamworld, Europe rules the world</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are missing that in reality , outside your US-centric dreamworld , Europe rules the world</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are missing that in reality, outside your US-centric dreamworld, Europe rules the world</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810865</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29813627</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe I'm missing something..</title>
	<author>rgviza</author>
	<datestamp>1256030160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm all for OurSQL.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm all for OurSQL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm all for OurSQL.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810481</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810675</id>
	<title>Re:Big business kills open source...</title>
	<author>LWATCDR</author>
	<datestamp>1256062200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But 3dfx cards where slow and crappy. They died and nVidia picked up what was left after nVidia and ATI killed them. nVidia has for many years produced the best 3d drivers available for Linux even though they where closed source they where free as beer. Not perfect but nVidia was supporting Linux before it was cool.</p><p>MySQL? It has had a duel license for forever. Options like Postgres and Firebird have been around for years. So far Oracle has done nothing evil with MySQL so we should get all bent because it could happen&gt; Oracle has been pushing Linux for years for database servers which has been a big help to Linux in the enterprise.</p><p>What it comes too is that some people say that Oracle owning MySQL raises anti-trust issues. I just don't see that. Oracle has competition from DB2 and MSSQL in the closed source category and MySQL has competition from PsotgresSQL and Firebird in the FOSS category. If nothing else this is wake up call for more FOSS projects to look at databases other than MySQL.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But 3dfx cards where slow and crappy .
They died and nVidia picked up what was left after nVidia and ATI killed them .
nVidia has for many years produced the best 3d drivers available for Linux even though they where closed source they where free as beer .
Not perfect but nVidia was supporting Linux before it was cool.MySQL ?
It has had a duel license for forever .
Options like Postgres and Firebird have been around for years .
So far Oracle has done nothing evil with MySQL so we should get all bent because it could happen &gt; Oracle has been pushing Linux for years for database servers which has been a big help to Linux in the enterprise.What it comes too is that some people say that Oracle owning MySQL raises anti-trust issues .
I just do n't see that .
Oracle has competition from DB2 and MSSQL in the closed source category and MySQL has competition from PsotgresSQL and Firebird in the FOSS category .
If nothing else this is wake up call for more FOSS projects to look at databases other than MySQL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But 3dfx cards where slow and crappy.
They died and nVidia picked up what was left after nVidia and ATI killed them.
nVidia has for many years produced the best 3d drivers available for Linux even though they where closed source they where free as beer.
Not perfect but nVidia was supporting Linux before it was cool.MySQL?
It has had a duel license for forever.
Options like Postgres and Firebird have been around for years.
So far Oracle has done nothing evil with MySQL so we should get all bent because it could happen&gt; Oracle has been pushing Linux for years for database servers which has been a big help to Linux in the enterprise.What it comes too is that some people say that Oracle owning MySQL raises anti-trust issues.
I just don't see that.
Oracle has competition from DB2 and MSSQL in the closed source category and MySQL has competition from PsotgresSQL and Firebird in the FOSS category.
If nothing else this is wake up call for more FOSS projects to look at databases other than MySQL.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810433</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810207</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe I'm missing something..</title>
	<author>Nadaka</author>
	<datestamp>1256060640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The letter by RMS addresses that question. That being that the commercially licensed version of MySQL funded suns continued development of the GPL'ed MySQL, and oracle would have a conflict of interest in continuing to develop and license a low cost alternative to its high priced core product.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The letter by RMS addresses that question .
That being that the commercially licensed version of MySQL funded suns continued development of the GPL'ed MySQL , and oracle would have a conflict of interest in continuing to develop and license a low cost alternative to its high priced core product .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The letter by RMS addresses that question.
That being that the commercially licensed version of MySQL funded suns continued development of the GPL'ed MySQL, and oracle would have a conflict of interest in continuing to develop and license a low cost alternative to its high priced core product.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29809977</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810315</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe I'm missing something..</title>
	<author>Icegryphon</author>
	<datestamp>1256061000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because if people don't like the fork then someone else will fork it.<br>
So on, and so on, until MySQL is forked so many times people will call it a slut?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because if people do n't like the fork then someone else will fork it .
So on , and so on , until MySQL is forked so many times people will call it a slut ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because if people don't like the fork then someone else will fork it.
So on, and so on, until MySQL is forked so many times people will call it a slut?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29809977</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29811173</id>
	<title>Re:How about Google?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256063880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They would be the perfect maintainer...How many installs of MySQL already apply the Google patches currently for stability and scalability</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They would be the perfect maintainer...How many installs of MySQL already apply the Google patches currently for stability and scalability</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They would be the perfect maintainer...How many installs of MySQL already apply the Google patches currently for stability and scalability</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810055</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29811379</id>
	<title>The problem for Oracle...</title>
	<author>TemporalBeing</author>
	<datestamp>1256064720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>...is that if they keep it, it'll create Antitrust issues for them. So the suggestion is to <i>sell</i> it.
<br> <br>
Except, that's isn't exactly a good idea right now either. After all, they sold it to Sun for $1 Billion USD. What would it say if it Oracle/Sun sold it for less - even $900 Million USD? That MySQL wasn't worth $1 Billion USD; which would not be good PR for the F/OSS community, likely run afoul of Antitrust issues (for the PR reasons - especially if Oracle/Sun went - "see it mustn't have been all that good since we couldn't get what we paid for it"), but at least Oracle/Sun would get a tax write off on the difference.
<br> <br>
So then, why not kill two birds with one stone - spin MySQL off as its own company. Make it a non-profit (MySQL Foundation) or something; keep a seat or two of the board, and let the community fill the rest. Oracle could get very good PR for doing so too.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...is that if they keep it , it 'll create Antitrust issues for them .
So the suggestion is to sell it .
Except , that 's is n't exactly a good idea right now either .
After all , they sold it to Sun for $ 1 Billion USD .
What would it say if it Oracle/Sun sold it for less - even $ 900 Million USD ?
That MySQL was n't worth $ 1 Billion USD ; which would not be good PR for the F/OSS community , likely run afoul of Antitrust issues ( for the PR reasons - especially if Oracle/Sun went - " see it must n't have been all that good since we could n't get what we paid for it " ) , but at least Oracle/Sun would get a tax write off on the difference .
So then , why not kill two birds with one stone - spin MySQL off as its own company .
Make it a non-profit ( MySQL Foundation ) or something ; keep a seat or two of the board , and let the community fill the rest .
Oracle could get very good PR for doing so too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...is that if they keep it, it'll create Antitrust issues for them.
So the suggestion is to sell it.
Except, that's isn't exactly a good idea right now either.
After all, they sold it to Sun for $1 Billion USD.
What would it say if it Oracle/Sun sold it for less - even $900 Million USD?
That MySQL wasn't worth $1 Billion USD; which would not be good PR for the F/OSS community, likely run afoul of Antitrust issues (for the PR reasons - especially if Oracle/Sun went - "see it mustn't have been all that good since we couldn't get what we paid for it"), but at least Oracle/Sun would get a tax write off on the difference.
So then, why not kill two birds with one stone - spin MySQL off as its own company.
Make it a non-profit (MySQL Foundation) or something; keep a seat or two of the board, and let the community fill the rest.
Oracle could get very good PR for doing so too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29812471</id>
	<title>Re:Bring on the hate</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256068500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That could be a pretty awesome move on Apple's part.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That could be a pretty awesome move on Apple 's part .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That could be a pretty awesome move on Apple's part.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810159</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29811009</id>
	<title>Oh, that would be so darned *spiffy!*</title>
	<author>gestalt\_n\_pepper</author>
	<datestamp>1256063520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course, we live in a capitalist system, so the most likely answer you'll get to that suggestion is "f*** off" but more politely worded.</p><p>Note to open source guys. Larry Ellison thanks you for the free labor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course , we live in a capitalist system , so the most likely answer you 'll get to that suggestion is " f * * * off " but more politely worded.Note to open source guys .
Larry Ellison thanks you for the free labor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course, we live in a capitalist system, so the most likely answer you'll get to that suggestion is "f*** off" but more politely worded.Note to open source guys.
Larry Ellison thanks you for the free labor.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29813239</id>
	<title>Re:Is Oracle more evil than Microsoft?</title>
	<author>garyebickford</author>
	<datestamp>1256071860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Larry Ellison is at least as arrogant and rapacious as anyone at Microsoft.  On the other hand, he's supporting the BMW/Oracle America's cup boat, which is cool, and has stepped up to the place to force some even bigger a*(^^**^* (see 'Alinghi') via a multi-year court ase.  They've finally won in court, and the race is on.</p><p>Here's the website: <a href="http://bmworacleracing.com/en/index.html?track.refer=" title="bmworacleracing.com">BMW Oracle</a> [bmworacleracing.com]  This trimaran is 90 feet by 90 feet with top speeds approaching 50 MPH.  It is a very scary boat to ride, by all accounts - or to drive.  Imagine a 90 foot car cornering on two wheels at 150 MPH - that's essentially how BMW Oracle sails.</p><p>I don't use Oracle, but I'm glad to see some of that money going to a good cause!!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Larry Ellison is at least as arrogant and rapacious as anyone at Microsoft .
On the other hand , he 's supporting the BMW/Oracle America 's cup boat , which is cool , and has stepped up to the place to force some even bigger a * ( ^ ^ * * ^ * ( see 'Alinghi ' ) via a multi-year court ase .
They 've finally won in court , and the race is on.Here 's the website : BMW Oracle [ bmworacleracing.com ] This trimaran is 90 feet by 90 feet with top speeds approaching 50 MPH .
It is a very scary boat to ride , by all accounts - or to drive .
Imagine a 90 foot car cornering on two wheels at 150 MPH - that 's essentially how BMW Oracle sails.I do n't use Oracle , but I 'm glad to see some of that money going to a good cause ! !
: D</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Larry Ellison is at least as arrogant and rapacious as anyone at Microsoft.
On the other hand, he's supporting the BMW/Oracle America's cup boat, which is cool, and has stepped up to the place to force some even bigger a*(^^**^* (see 'Alinghi') via a multi-year court ase.
They've finally won in court, and the race is on.Here's the website: BMW Oracle [bmworacleracing.com]  This trimaran is 90 feet by 90 feet with top speeds approaching 50 MPH.
It is a very scary boat to ride, by all accounts - or to drive.
Imagine a 90 foot car cornering on two wheels at 150 MPH - that's essentially how BMW Oracle sails.I don't use Oracle, but I'm glad to see some of that money going to a good cause!!
:D</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29811079</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29812515</id>
	<title>The REAL news is RMS' admissions</title>
	<author>FallLine</author>
	<datestamp>1256068620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In <a href="http://keionline.org/ec-mysql" title="keionline.org">the letter</a> [keionline.org] he co-authored:</p><blockquote><div><p>1) They all but admit that the dual-licensing is critical to the survival of not just MySQL in its current form, but also any fork derived from it.</p><p>2) They completely fail to mention any sort of alternative business model for MySQL or any of its derivatives, i.e., no mention of the mythical "support" business model especially or anything else.</p><p>3) They neglect the potential that code can be forked and successfully managed by un-paid volunteers.</p><p>4) They ignore that possibility that its users will donate money or large companies will make substantial contributions to cover development.</p><p>5) They also acknowledge the fragility of the open source ecosystem due to conflicting licenses</p></div></blockquote><p>@@@@@@</p><p>Although I believe their analysis is largely correct as far as MySQL's survival is concerned, it demonstrates very little faith in GPL-licensed projects to grow and be maintained in absence of proprietary rights and directly contradicts the overall message of RMS and company.  If they merely posited that Oracle could delay the development of MySQL for, say, a year it would not necessarily be contradictory, but to propose this is an earth shaking event and do so in the manner which they did is simply inconsistent with RMS and his follower's message.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the letter [ keionline.org ] he co-authored : 1 ) They all but admit that the dual-licensing is critical to the survival of not just MySQL in its current form , but also any fork derived from it.2 ) They completely fail to mention any sort of alternative business model for MySQL or any of its derivatives , i.e. , no mention of the mythical " support " business model especially or anything else.3 ) They neglect the potential that code can be forked and successfully managed by un-paid volunteers.4 ) They ignore that possibility that its users will donate money or large companies will make substantial contributions to cover development.5 ) They also acknowledge the fragility of the open source ecosystem due to conflicting licenses @ @ @ @ @ @ Although I believe their analysis is largely correct as far as MySQL 's survival is concerned , it demonstrates very little faith in GPL-licensed projects to grow and be maintained in absence of proprietary rights and directly contradicts the overall message of RMS and company .
If they merely posited that Oracle could delay the development of MySQL for , say , a year it would not necessarily be contradictory , but to propose this is an earth shaking event and do so in the manner which they did is simply inconsistent with RMS and his follower 's message .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the letter [keionline.org] he co-authored:1) They all but admit that the dual-licensing is critical to the survival of not just MySQL in its current form, but also any fork derived from it.2) They completely fail to mention any sort of alternative business model for MySQL or any of its derivatives, i.e., no mention of the mythical "support" business model especially or anything else.3) They neglect the potential that code can be forked and successfully managed by un-paid volunteers.4) They ignore that possibility that its users will donate money or large companies will make substantial contributions to cover development.5) They also acknowledge the fragility of the open source ecosystem due to conflicting licenses@@@@@@Although I believe their analysis is largely correct as far as MySQL's survival is concerned, it demonstrates very little faith in GPL-licensed projects to grow and be maintained in absence of proprietary rights and directly contradicts the overall message of RMS and company.
If they merely posited that Oracle could delay the development of MySQL for, say, a year it would not necessarily be contradictory, but to propose this is an earth shaking event and do so in the manner which they did is simply inconsistent with RMS and his follower's message.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29812711</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe I'm missing something..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256069400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>MySQL's replication support is vastly vastly overrated.  Most people who tout MySQL's replication support have never used it and never have had an opportunity to run into the mountains of caveats, gotchas, and outright brokenness that is MySQL's replication.</p><p>Postgres has been patiently building a replication system that just works.  PG-R will be built into Postgres 9 if not sooner, and it will pretty much blow MySQL's replication out of the water.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>MySQL 's replication support is vastly vastly overrated .
Most people who tout MySQL 's replication support have never used it and never have had an opportunity to run into the mountains of caveats , gotchas , and outright brokenness that is MySQL 's replication.Postgres has been patiently building a replication system that just works .
PG-R will be built into Postgres 9 if not sooner , and it will pretty much blow MySQL 's replication out of the water .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MySQL's replication support is vastly vastly overrated.
Most people who tout MySQL's replication support have never used it and never have had an opportunity to run into the mountains of caveats, gotchas, and outright brokenness that is MySQL's replication.Postgres has been patiently building a replication system that just works.
PG-R will be built into Postgres 9 if not sooner, and it will pretty much blow MySQL's replication out of the water.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810283</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29812089</id>
	<title>Re:MySQL has been accepted because Oracle owns it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256067000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fuck you. Idiots like you have caused the entire IT field way too much pain.</p><p>There is no place for MySQL in any operation. I don't care what existing databases they might already use. PostgreSQL is ALWAYS a better option.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fuck you .
Idiots like you have caused the entire IT field way too much pain.There is no place for MySQL in any operation .
I do n't care what existing databases they might already use .
PostgreSQL is ALWAYS a better option .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fuck you.
Idiots like you have caused the entire IT field way too much pain.There is no place for MySQL in any operation.
I don't care what existing databases they might already use.
PostgreSQL is ALWAYS a better option.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810573</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29811033</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe I'm missing something..</title>
	<author>jonbryce</author>
	<datestamp>1256063580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>MySQL's business plan is to sell proprietary licences to people who don't want a free version for whatever reason, and to use this money to fund development of the software.  You wouldn't be able to do this with a forked version of the software so you would have to rely a lot more on donations and volunteers to fund development work.  Also, the people who don't want to use a free database program would go somewhere else for a proprietary solution, so this would dilute the network effect of other people developing their programs round a MySQL platform.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>MySQL 's business plan is to sell proprietary licences to people who do n't want a free version for whatever reason , and to use this money to fund development of the software .
You would n't be able to do this with a forked version of the software so you would have to rely a lot more on donations and volunteers to fund development work .
Also , the people who do n't want to use a free database program would go somewhere else for a proprietary solution , so this would dilute the network effect of other people developing their programs round a MySQL platform .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MySQL's business plan is to sell proprietary licences to people who don't want a free version for whatever reason, and to use this money to fund development of the software.
You wouldn't be able to do this with a forked version of the software so you would have to rely a lot more on donations and volunteers to fund development work.
Also, the people who don't want to use a free database program would go somewhere else for a proprietary solution, so this would dilute the network effect of other people developing their programs round a MySQL platform.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29809977</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29825443</id>
	<title>Re:Transactions</title>
	<author>neoform</author>
	<datestamp>1256149260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe I'm missing the joke.. but..  InnoDB supports them. I use them all the time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe I 'm missing the joke.. but.. InnoDB supports them .
I use them all the time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe I'm missing the joke.. but..  InnoDB supports them.
I use them all the time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810229</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29811511</id>
	<title>MaxDB?</title>
	<author>t482</author>
	<datestamp>1256065200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>My pet theory is that SAP is helping block the merger due to Mysql MAXDB. Which I believe used to be Adibas from SAP.<br><br>If Oracle get it hands on that they could hurt SAP revenues and grab SAP customers. I don't believe the EU will back down. I wonder it that could kill the merger?<br><br></tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>My pet theory is that SAP is helping block the merger due to Mysql MAXDB .
Which I believe used to be Adibas from SAP.If Oracle get it hands on that they could hurt SAP revenues and grab SAP customers .
I do n't believe the EU will back down .
I wonder it that could kill the merger ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My pet theory is that SAP is helping block the merger due to Mysql MAXDB.
Which I believe used to be Adibas from SAP.If Oracle get it hands on that they could hurt SAP revenues and grab SAP customers.
I don't believe the EU will back down.
I wonder it that could kill the merger?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810865</id>
	<title>Held up?</title>
	<author>vvaduva</author>
	<datestamp>1256062980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How can a transaction between two U.S. companies be held up by some European commission?  What am I missing?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How can a transaction between two U.S. companies be held up by some European commission ?
What am I missing ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How can a transaction between two U.S. companies be held up by some European commission?
What am I missing?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810229</id>
	<title>Transactions</title>
	<author>fartrader</author>
	<datestamp>1256060700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So its true, MySQL still doesn't support Transaction rollbacks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So its true , MySQL still does n't support Transaction rollbacks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So its true, MySQL still doesn't support Transaction rollbacks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29813625</id>
	<title>Big numbers are good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256030100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For the same reason that Google paid massive amounts for Youtube and Microsoft paid massive amounts for a tiny share (1.8\% or so, if I recall) of Facebook though neither of those makes any profit (quite the opposite, by a large margin). I am sure we could find many more examples of this (increasingly common) trend. Very large companies seem to invest massive amounts in products that couldn't conceivably even pay back those investments.</p><p>I don't understand the reason but a wild guess would be the imago effect. Paying huge sums of money for something hints that the company has made an acquisition they consider extremely important, so they probably are able to gain some large benefit from it in the future, even if we don't understand how that could happen ("Sun works in mysterious ways"). Paying so much must mean that it is something *huge*. A whole new direction for the company. Something the company is willing to push onwards and invest in... Well, you get the idea. More pages in finance magazines, more interest from investors, etc.</p><p>No matter what the imago effect is, I still do think that it is stupid (Dollar to imago ratio just can't be good when you waste hundreds of millions). But I just don't see any alternatives to my hypothesis.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For the same reason that Google paid massive amounts for Youtube and Microsoft paid massive amounts for a tiny share ( 1.8 \ % or so , if I recall ) of Facebook though neither of those makes any profit ( quite the opposite , by a large margin ) .
I am sure we could find many more examples of this ( increasingly common ) trend .
Very large companies seem to invest massive amounts in products that could n't conceivably even pay back those investments.I do n't understand the reason but a wild guess would be the imago effect .
Paying huge sums of money for something hints that the company has made an acquisition they consider extremely important , so they probably are able to gain some large benefit from it in the future , even if we do n't understand how that could happen ( " Sun works in mysterious ways " ) .
Paying so much must mean that it is something * huge * .
A whole new direction for the company .
Something the company is willing to push onwards and invest in... Well , you get the idea .
More pages in finance magazines , more interest from investors , etc.No matter what the imago effect is , I still do think that it is stupid ( Dollar to imago ratio just ca n't be good when you waste hundreds of millions ) .
But I just do n't see any alternatives to my hypothesis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For the same reason that Google paid massive amounts for Youtube and Microsoft paid massive amounts for a tiny share (1.8\% or so, if I recall) of Facebook though neither of those makes any profit (quite the opposite, by a large margin).
I am sure we could find many more examples of this (increasingly common) trend.
Very large companies seem to invest massive amounts in products that couldn't conceivably even pay back those investments.I don't understand the reason but a wild guess would be the imago effect.
Paying huge sums of money for something hints that the company has made an acquisition they consider extremely important, so they probably are able to gain some large benefit from it in the future, even if we don't understand how that could happen ("Sun works in mysterious ways").
Paying so much must mean that it is something *huge*.
A whole new direction for the company.
Something the company is willing to push onwards and invest in... Well, you get the idea.
More pages in finance magazines, more interest from investors, etc.No matter what the imago effect is, I still do think that it is stupid (Dollar to imago ratio just can't be good when you waste hundreds of millions).
But I just don't see any alternatives to my hypothesis.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810527</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810305</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe I'm missing something..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256060940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In theory that might be a good idea.  However, in practice, forks only have two realistic outcomes.  Either they're just plain ignored--as is the case with present MySQL forks, or they divide and segregate the user base.  The consequences of the later could potentially prove the undoing of the project.  Relying upon products with an unstable and uncertain future make management types nervous...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In theory that might be a good idea .
However , in practice , forks only have two realistic outcomes .
Either they 're just plain ignored--as is the case with present MySQL forks , or they divide and segregate the user base .
The consequences of the later could potentially prove the undoing of the project .
Relying upon products with an unstable and uncertain future make management types nervous.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In theory that might be a good idea.
However, in practice, forks only have two realistic outcomes.
Either they're just plain ignored--as is the case with present MySQL forks, or they divide and segregate the user base.
The consequences of the later could potentially prove the undoing of the project.
Relying upon products with an unstable and uncertain future make management types nervous...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29809977</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29823455</id>
	<title>Re:Is Monte only looking out for himself</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256140140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm so totally agree with this. I mean, just imagine this:<br>MySQL owners: "Hey Oracle, let's spin this off MySQL as another company..."<br>Oracle: "OK, let's do it."<br>Many weeks later...<br>MySQL owner: "Hey RedHat, you interested to own us? How about another billion dollars deal?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm so totally agree with this .
I mean , just imagine this : MySQL owners : " Hey Oracle , let 's spin this off MySQL as another company... " Oracle : " OK , let 's do it .
" Many weeks later...MySQL owner : " Hey RedHat , you interested to own us ?
How about another billion dollars deal ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm so totally agree with this.
I mean, just imagine this:MySQL owners: "Hey Oracle, let's spin this off MySQL as another company..."Oracle: "OK, let's do it.
"Many weeks later...MySQL owner: "Hey RedHat, you interested to own us?
How about another billion dollars deal?
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810645</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29818397</id>
	<title>Re:</title>
	<author>clint999</author>
	<datestamp>1256052600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>I would also suspect that there is a great deal of concern over the fact that many web hosting providers offer MySQL as the included database for a cheap, base-level, non-configurable package. Turnover of mindshare in that market seems to be extremely slow -I've noticed the cheaper packages tend to be sold to the technophobic. Many hosting providers will be inclined to stick with MySQL and MySQL support contracts with Oracle. This is part of what Oracle purchased, to be honest, but the EU has the right to e</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would also suspect that there is a great deal of concern over the fact that many web hosting providers offer MySQL as the included database for a cheap , base-level , non-configurable package .
Turnover of mindshare in that market seems to be extremely slow -I 've noticed the cheaper packages tend to be sold to the technophobic .
Many hosting providers will be inclined to stick with MySQL and MySQL support contracts with Oracle .
This is part of what Oracle purchased , to be honest , but the EU has the right to e</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would also suspect that there is a great deal of concern over the fact that many web hosting providers offer MySQL as the included database for a cheap, base-level, non-configurable package.
Turnover of mindshare in that market seems to be extremely slow -I've noticed the cheaper packages tend to be sold to the technophobic.
Many hosting providers will be inclined to stick with MySQL and MySQL support contracts with Oracle.
This is part of what Oracle purchased, to be honest, but the EU has the right to e</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29811203</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe I'm missing something..</title>
	<author>jadavis</author>
	<datestamp>1256064000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>just fork</i></p><p>If you "just" fork, then you "just" have source code.</p><p>Bug fixes, support, organization, new releases, infrastructure, or anything else will cost extra. Communities that do this aren't ethereal entities that magically accomplish work; they are people, and it takes a long time to put a real team together. It takes even longer if you start with a budget of $0. Respected leaders like Monty can do it more quickly, but even then, it's a serious challenge.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>just forkIf you " just " fork , then you " just " have source code.Bug fixes , support , organization , new releases , infrastructure , or anything else will cost extra .
Communities that do this are n't ethereal entities that magically accomplish work ; they are people , and it takes a long time to put a real team together .
It takes even longer if you start with a budget of $ 0 .
Respected leaders like Monty can do it more quickly , but even then , it 's a serious challenge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>just forkIf you "just" fork, then you "just" have source code.Bug fixes, support, organization, new releases, infrastructure, or anything else will cost extra.
Communities that do this aren't ethereal entities that magically accomplish work; they are people, and it takes a long time to put a real team together.
It takes even longer if you start with a budget of $0.
Respected leaders like Monty can do it more quickly, but even then, it's a serious challenge.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29809977</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29819819</id>
	<title>Re:Big business kills open source...</title>
	<author>Eskarel</author>
	<datestamp>1256064000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>3dfx died because they got cocky. They presumed that 16 bit and 10\% faster could beat 32 bit and they were wrong. They presumed that glide(I think that's what it was called) could beat OpenGL and Direct3d, they were wrong.</p><p>There was a Voodoo 5, but no one bought it, and by the time NVIDIA bought them there was no product line to bother discontinuing and they got the company for a song, grabbed what they could use and threw the rest away like the worthless pile of crap it was.</p><p>I don't know what role 3dfx had in Linux because I never owned one(chose 32 bit and slightly slower like everyone else) and wasn't using Linux that far back, but NVIDIA have been pretty supportive, and 3dfx was dead before the Xbox was even in development.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>3dfx died because they got cocky .
They presumed that 16 bit and 10 \ % faster could beat 32 bit and they were wrong .
They presumed that glide ( I think that 's what it was called ) could beat OpenGL and Direct3d , they were wrong.There was a Voodoo 5 , but no one bought it , and by the time NVIDIA bought them there was no product line to bother discontinuing and they got the company for a song , grabbed what they could use and threw the rest away like the worthless pile of crap it was.I do n't know what role 3dfx had in Linux because I never owned one ( chose 32 bit and slightly slower like everyone else ) and was n't using Linux that far back , but NVIDIA have been pretty supportive , and 3dfx was dead before the Xbox was even in development .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>3dfx died because they got cocky.
They presumed that 16 bit and 10\% faster could beat 32 bit and they were wrong.
They presumed that glide(I think that's what it was called) could beat OpenGL and Direct3d, they were wrong.There was a Voodoo 5, but no one bought it, and by the time NVIDIA bought them there was no product line to bother discontinuing and they got the company for a song, grabbed what they could use and threw the rest away like the worthless pile of crap it was.I don't know what role 3dfx had in Linux because I never owned one(chose 32 bit and slightly slower like everyone else) and wasn't using Linux that far back, but NVIDIA have been pretty supportive, and 3dfx was dead before the Xbox was even in development.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810433</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29813009</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe I'm missing something..</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1256070720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What low priced alternative would be in conflict.  MySQL is NOT an alternative to Oracle, they are in completely different classes.</p><p>If you don't know this already I suspect you know very little about database servers in general.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What low priced alternative would be in conflict .
MySQL is NOT an alternative to Oracle , they are in completely different classes.If you do n't know this already I suspect you know very little about database servers in general .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What low priced alternative would be in conflict.
MySQL is NOT an alternative to Oracle, they are in completely different classes.If you don't know this already I suspect you know very little about database servers in general.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810207</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29812823</id>
	<title>Re:Is Monte only looking out for himself</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256069820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll say this makes open source acquisition look goofy.  Pay $1B and get stabbed in the back by those who sold it to you...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll say this makes open source acquisition look goofy .
Pay $ 1B and get stabbed in the back by those who sold it to you.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll say this makes open source acquisition look goofy.
Pay $1B and get stabbed in the back by those who sold it to you...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810645</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29813931</id>
	<title>Re:Your input has been noted</title>
	<author>jellomizer</author>
	<datestamp>1256031180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When you sell your pride and joy.  The best thing to do is take your money and no longer think about it.  Otherwise you will be frustrated because the new owner doesn't care about it as much as you did.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When you sell your pride and joy .
The best thing to do is take your money and no longer think about it .
Otherwise you will be frustrated because the new owner does n't care about it as much as you did .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you sell your pride and joy.
The best thing to do is take your money and no longer think about it.
Otherwise you will be frustrated because the new owner doesn't care about it as much as you did.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29809973</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29811243</id>
	<title>Re:wow</title>
	<author>TheLink</author>
	<datestamp>1256064120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seems to me that Oracle will try to convert as much of MySQL's marketshare to $$$ as possible. Kill/slow development of certain MySQL features, create some easy upgrade paths to Oracle = profit.<br><br>Makes a lot more sense than ebay's billion dollar purchase of skype, which somehow left out the important bits<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:). I'm still not sure how ebay recently managed to convince others to buy skype from them...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems to me that Oracle will try to convert as much of MySQL 's marketshare to $ $ $ as possible .
Kill/slow development of certain MySQL features , create some easy upgrade paths to Oracle = profit.Makes a lot more sense than ebay 's billion dollar purchase of skype , which somehow left out the important bits : ) .
I 'm still not sure how ebay recently managed to convince others to buy skype from them.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems to me that Oracle will try to convert as much of MySQL's marketshare to $$$ as possible.
Kill/slow development of certain MySQL features, create some easy upgrade paths to Oracle = profit.Makes a lot more sense than ebay's billion dollar purchase of skype, which somehow left out the important bits :).
I'm still not sure how ebay recently managed to convince others to buy skype from them...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810527</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29819755</id>
	<title>Re:Your input has been noted</title>
	<author>Eskarel</author>
	<datestamp>1256063160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Especially since they're only competitors in the broadest of senses. MySQL isn't in anyway appropriate for seriously large data sets, and Oracle isn't in anyway appropriate for small ones. There's probably a very small market niche where they overlap, but within that niche, you'd probably be better of with MS SQL anyway, which seems to be the middle level product for that market.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Especially since they 're only competitors in the broadest of senses .
MySQL is n't in anyway appropriate for seriously large data sets , and Oracle is n't in anyway appropriate for small ones .
There 's probably a very small market niche where they overlap , but within that niche , you 'd probably be better of with MS SQL anyway , which seems to be the middle level product for that market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Especially since they're only competitors in the broadest of senses.
MySQL isn't in anyway appropriate for seriously large data sets, and Oracle isn't in anyway appropriate for small ones.
There's probably a very small market niche where they overlap, but within that niche, you'd probably be better of with MS SQL anyway, which seems to be the middle level product for that market.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29812987</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29814969</id>
	<title>Re:Is Oracle more evil than Microsoft?</title>
	<author>davecb</author>
	<datestamp>1256034600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The objection to Oracle owning MySQL came in part from Microsoft, a competitor, and other as-yet-unknown parties.  Wanna bet it's just a way of throwing a wooden show in Sun's gears, for all the flack MS used to get from them?

</p><p>--dave</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The objection to Oracle owning MySQL came in part from Microsoft , a competitor , and other as-yet-unknown parties .
Wan na bet it 's just a way of throwing a wooden show in Sun 's gears , for all the flack MS used to get from them ?
--dave</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The objection to Oracle owning MySQL came in part from Microsoft, a competitor, and other as-yet-unknown parties.
Wanna bet it's just a way of throwing a wooden show in Sun's gears, for all the flack MS used to get from them?
--dave</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29811079</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810547</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe I'm missing something..</title>
	<author>merrickm</author>
	<datestamp>1256061780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Those who are only using the code under the GPL can only distribute it to others under the GPL. Those who own the code can also sell commercial licenses. Also, the name MySQL itself has built up a great deal of brand recognition and loyalty.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Those who are only using the code under the GPL can only distribute it to others under the GPL .
Those who own the code can also sell commercial licenses .
Also , the name MySQL itself has built up a great deal of brand recognition and loyalty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those who are only using the code under the GPL can only distribute it to others under the GPL.
Those who own the code can also sell commercial licenses.
Also, the name MySQL itself has built up a great deal of brand recognition and loyalty.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29809977</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810645</id>
	<title>Is Monte only looking out for himself</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256062140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>disclaimer: I work for Sun and know nothing about mysql...</p><p>Here's what I don't get, Monte and company sell mysql to Sun for 1 billion dollars.<br>I assume Monte got a decent portion of that.. I also assume that Monte had to<br>sign a no compete agreement for that sum of money.</p><p>I'm sure Sun would be more that happy to sell back mysql if<br>the original owners would like to give the $1 billion back.. I'm<br>guessing they wouldn't.</p><p>I would bet Monte wouldn't even give his portion back. Could<br>this be Monte trying to keep the money he got and try to get<br>out of a non compete agreement? (if he did indeed sign one).</p><p>Yes, I'm bitter...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-) As the EU holds this up longer, more people<br>@ Sun will lose jobs over political crap. If Oracle was based out<br>of the EU this wouldn't have happened.  I'm willing to wager if SAP<br>wasn't based out of the EU, this wouldn't be delayed either...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>disclaimer : I work for Sun and know nothing about mysql...Here 's what I do n't get , Monte and company sell mysql to Sun for 1 billion dollars.I assume Monte got a decent portion of that.. I also assume that Monte had tosign a no compete agreement for that sum of money.I 'm sure Sun would be more that happy to sell back mysql ifthe original owners would like to give the $ 1 billion back.. I'mguessing they would n't.I would bet Monte would n't even give his portion back .
Couldthis be Monte trying to keep the money he got and try to getout of a non compete agreement ?
( if he did indeed sign one ) .Yes , I 'm bitter... ; - ) As the EU holds this up longer , more people @ Sun will lose jobs over political crap .
If Oracle was based outof the EU this would n't have happened .
I 'm willing to wager if SAPwas n't based out of the EU , this would n't be delayed either.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>disclaimer: I work for Sun and know nothing about mysql...Here's what I don't get, Monte and company sell mysql to Sun for 1 billion dollars.I assume Monte got a decent portion of that.. I also assume that Monte had tosign a no compete agreement for that sum of money.I'm sure Sun would be more that happy to sell back mysql ifthe original owners would like to give the $1 billion back.. I'mguessing they wouldn't.I would bet Monte wouldn't even give his portion back.
Couldthis be Monte trying to keep the money he got and try to getout of a non compete agreement?
(if he did indeed sign one).Yes, I'm bitter... ;-) As the EU holds this up longer, more people@ Sun will lose jobs over political crap.
If Oracle was based outof the EU this wouldn't have happened.
I'm willing to wager if SAPwasn't based out of the EU, this wouldn't be delayed either...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810523</id>
	<title>Re:3D?</title>
	<author>Rei</author>
	<datestamp>1256061720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Plus, they want a neutral party, and 2D entities are generally rather basic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Plus , they want a neutral party , and 2D entities are generally rather basic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Plus, they want a neutral party, and 2D entities are generally rather basic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29809945</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29826415</id>
	<title>Re:wow</title>
	<author>Hognoxious</author>
	<datestamp>1256152800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> Someone paid $1 BILLION for a software company that made maybe a few million in revenue a year, and who already distribute most of the source code for their main product? Why?</p></div></blockquote><p>To stop anybody else getting it.  That's what them there PHBs call strategy, that is.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone paid $ 1 BILLION for a software company that made maybe a few million in revenue a year , and who already distribute most of the source code for their main product ?
Why ? To stop anybody else getting it .
That 's what them there PHBs call strategy , that is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Someone paid $1 BILLION for a software company that made maybe a few million in revenue a year, and who already distribute most of the source code for their main product?
Why?To stop anybody else getting it.
That's what them there PHBs call strategy, that is.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810527</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810827</id>
	<title>gnaa</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256062860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">More grandiose knows for sure what and sling or table some inteeligEent</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>More grandiose knows for sure what and sling or table some inteeligEent [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More grandiose knows for sure what and sling or table some inteeligEent [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810659</id>
	<title>Re:Bring on the hate</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256062140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, I would love to only be legally allowed to run MySQL on Apple-approved hardware...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , I would love to only be legally allowed to run MySQL on Apple-approved hardware.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, I would love to only be legally allowed to run MySQL on Apple-approved hardware...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810159</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29816783</id>
	<title>PostgreSQL?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256043780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In a free market, wouldn't this be a boon for PostgreSQL?  Oh, wait, that would be in a free market.  Never mind.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In a free market , would n't this be a boon for PostgreSQL ?
Oh , wait , that would be in a free market .
Never mind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In a free market, wouldn't this be a boon for PostgreSQL?
Oh, wait, that would be in a free market.
Never mind.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810393</id>
	<title>why is this an issue for antitrust?</title>
	<author>illuminaut</author>
	<datestamp>1256061240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>MySQL and Oracle have never directly competed, and never will. If Oracle were to shell MySQL, there are plenty of groups willing to jump in and maintain a fork. I don't know why a lot of people seem to be worried about Oracle's commitment to open source anyway. They have a good track record and there's no business reason to stop supporting it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>MySQL and Oracle have never directly competed , and never will .
If Oracle were to shell MySQL , there are plenty of groups willing to jump in and maintain a fork .
I do n't know why a lot of people seem to be worried about Oracle 's commitment to open source anyway .
They have a good track record and there 's no business reason to stop supporting it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MySQL and Oracle have never directly competed, and never will.
If Oracle were to shell MySQL, there are plenty of groups willing to jump in and maintain a fork.
I don't know why a lot of people seem to be worried about Oracle's commitment to open source anyway.
They have a good track record and there's no business reason to stop supporting it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29814187</id>
	<title>Nah, they should keep it.</title>
	<author>outZider</author>
	<datestamp>1256032020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They could benefit from the experience at Oracle, and maybe add a few engineers to the team that understand "data integrity" and "don't corrupt data when the server dies", oh, and, "stop corrupting the database when the disk runs out of space".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They could benefit from the experience at Oracle , and maybe add a few engineers to the team that understand " data integrity " and " do n't corrupt data when the server dies " , oh , and , " stop corrupting the database when the disk runs out of space " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They could benefit from the experience at Oracle, and maybe add a few engineers to the team that understand "data integrity" and "don't corrupt data when the server dies", oh, and, "stop corrupting the database when the disk runs out of space".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810447</id>
	<title>Re:Bring on the hate</title>
	<author>0racle</author>
	<datestamp>1256061360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>it's an essential part of OS X Server</p></div></blockquote><p>It is?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's an essential part of OS X ServerIt is ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it's an essential part of OS X ServerIt is?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810159</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29888577</id>
	<title>SUN-Oracle Survey</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256635680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hello Everyone,</p><p>I apologize for hijacking this webpage but it&rsquo;s for a good cause. I am doing a survey on the impact of Oracle&rsquo;s acquisition on SUN&rsquo;s customers and would like to solicit your feedback. The survey does not take more than a minue to complete. I would really appreciate your feedback.</p><p>http://www.surveymethods.com/EndUser.aspx?D9FD9182DA9B8E88</p><p>Thanks,</p><p>Imtiaz.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hello Everyone,I apologize for hijacking this webpage but it    s for a good cause .
I am doing a survey on the impact of Oracle    s acquisition on SUN    s customers and would like to solicit your feedback .
The survey does not take more than a minue to complete .
I would really appreciate your feedback.http : //www.surveymethods.com/EndUser.aspx ? D9FD9182DA9B8E88Thanks,Imtiaz .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hello Everyone,I apologize for hijacking this webpage but it’s for a good cause.
I am doing a survey on the impact of Oracle’s acquisition on SUN’s customers and would like to solicit your feedback.
The survey does not take more than a minue to complete.
I would really appreciate your feedback.http://www.surveymethods.com/EndUser.aspx?D9FD9182DA9B8E88Thanks,Imtiaz.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29811187</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29816361</id>
	<title>Re:Bring on the hate</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256041620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Then it would be renamed iMySQL.</p><p>Would run well on Apple machines, but crash every 5 minutes on Linux and Windows.</p><p>Would depreciate T-SQL and introduce a new transaction language Quick Interact (TM). Does the same thing but has a DRM wrapper on the data returned, and then demand that standards groups adopt it and ask for a hefty license fee from everybody.</p><p>Would require an Apple machine to do any development.</p><p>Once installed, the first update will (without asking you) add iTunes, Quicktime, Safari and a dozen other things you don't need.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then it would be renamed iMySQL.Would run well on Apple machines , but crash every 5 minutes on Linux and Windows.Would depreciate T-SQL and introduce a new transaction language Quick Interact ( TM ) .
Does the same thing but has a DRM wrapper on the data returned , and then demand that standards groups adopt it and ask for a hefty license fee from everybody.Would require an Apple machine to do any development.Once installed , the first update will ( without asking you ) add iTunes , Quicktime , Safari and a dozen other things you do n't need .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then it would be renamed iMySQL.Would run well on Apple machines, but crash every 5 minutes on Linux and Windows.Would depreciate T-SQL and introduce a new transaction language Quick Interact (TM).
Does the same thing but has a DRM wrapper on the data returned, and then demand that standards groups adopt it and ask for a hefty license fee from everybody.Would require an Apple machine to do any development.Once installed, the first update will (without asking you) add iTunes, Quicktime, Safari and a dozen other things you don't need.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810159</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29809945</id>
	<title>3D?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256059920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, those 2D parties are shallow and make for thin plots.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , those 2D parties are shallow and make for thin plots .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, those 2D parties are shallow and make for thin plots.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810983</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe I'm missing something..</title>
	<author>larry bagina</author>
	<datestamp>1256063400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are two other possibilities... the fork takes over and the original becomes irrelevant (x.org vs xfree86) or  the original adopts the fork (egcs vs gcc).  Oracle can't adopt back any outside fork (as they would no longer have full copyright over it).</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are two other possibilities... the fork takes over and the original becomes irrelevant ( x.org vs xfree86 ) or the original adopts the fork ( egcs vs gcc ) .
Oracle ca n't adopt back any outside fork ( as they would no longer have full copyright over it ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are two other possibilities... the fork takes over and the original becomes irrelevant (x.org vs xfree86) or  the original adopts the fork (egcs vs gcc).
Oracle can't adopt back any outside fork (as they would no longer have full copyright over it).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810305</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29814415</id>
	<title>Re:Big business kills open source...</title>
	<author>adolf</author>
	<datestamp>1256032680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm old enough to remember 3D on Linux before Linux was cool, and 3dfx was the <i>only</i> game in town with anything resembling useful software support, courtesy of GLIDE and Mesa 3D.  It took <i>years</i> for other vendors to have similarly functional hardware under Linux.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm old enough to remember 3D on Linux before Linux was cool , and 3dfx was the only game in town with anything resembling useful software support , courtesy of GLIDE and Mesa 3D .
It took years for other vendors to have similarly functional hardware under Linux .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm old enough to remember 3D on Linux before Linux was cool, and 3dfx was the only game in town with anything resembling useful software support, courtesy of GLIDE and Mesa 3D.
It took years for other vendors to have similarly functional hardware under Linux.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810675</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810531</id>
	<title>There's plenty of competition.</title>
	<author>RightSaidFred99</author>
	<datestamp>1256061720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They won't have a leg to stand on if they try to force this.  There is an enormous amount of competition at all levels in all segments of the Database market.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They wo n't have a leg to stand on if they try to force this .
There is an enormous amount of competition at all levels in all segments of the Database market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They won't have a leg to stand on if they try to force this.
There is an enormous amount of competition at all levels in all segments of the Database market.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29825673</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe I'm missing something..</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1256150040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>That being that the commercially licensed version of MySQL funded suns continued development of the GPL'ed MySQL, and oracle would have a conflict of interest in continuing to develop and license a low cost alternative to its high priced core product.</p></div></blockquote><p>Oracle has for some time continued to develop and license a wide variety of database products at different price points and feature sets, some of which are free (some gratis and at least one libre.) There is an inherent tradeoff with the less expensive (and free) versions in that they only make sense if Oracle thinks they will help other offerings (whether software or services) more than they will hurt sales of higher priced versions, to be sure, but that's no less true of, say, Oracle XE when compared to Oracle's high-end server products than it would be of MySQL.</p><p>Anyway, while database &amp; middleware is where Oracle still makes most of its software revenue, most of its growth in software revenue is in applications, not databases &amp; middleware. More in house platforms means more flexibility in building applications while avoiding paying some other vendor a profit premium.</p><p>So, I'm not convinced there is a real "conflict of interest" here. Certainly, Oracle's interests in developing MySQL will be different than an independent MySQL AB that didn't do anything buy MySQL and MySQL support would be, much as, frankly, Sun's interests were different, but having a different mix of interests isn't the same as having some kind of intolerable "conflict of interest".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That being that the commercially licensed version of MySQL funded suns continued development of the GPL'ed MySQL , and oracle would have a conflict of interest in continuing to develop and license a low cost alternative to its high priced core product.Oracle has for some time continued to develop and license a wide variety of database products at different price points and feature sets , some of which are free ( some gratis and at least one libre .
) There is an inherent tradeoff with the less expensive ( and free ) versions in that they only make sense if Oracle thinks they will help other offerings ( whether software or services ) more than they will hurt sales of higher priced versions , to be sure , but that 's no less true of , say , Oracle XE when compared to Oracle 's high-end server products than it would be of MySQL.Anyway , while database &amp; middleware is where Oracle still makes most of its software revenue , most of its growth in software revenue is in applications , not databases &amp; middleware .
More in house platforms means more flexibility in building applications while avoiding paying some other vendor a profit premium.So , I 'm not convinced there is a real " conflict of interest " here .
Certainly , Oracle 's interests in developing MySQL will be different than an independent MySQL AB that did n't do anything buy MySQL and MySQL support would be , much as , frankly , Sun 's interests were different , but having a different mix of interests is n't the same as having some kind of intolerable " conflict of interest " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That being that the commercially licensed version of MySQL funded suns continued development of the GPL'ed MySQL, and oracle would have a conflict of interest in continuing to develop and license a low cost alternative to its high priced core product.Oracle has for some time continued to develop and license a wide variety of database products at different price points and feature sets, some of which are free (some gratis and at least one libre.
) There is an inherent tradeoff with the less expensive (and free) versions in that they only make sense if Oracle thinks they will help other offerings (whether software or services) more than they will hurt sales of higher priced versions, to be sure, but that's no less true of, say, Oracle XE when compared to Oracle's high-end server products than it would be of MySQL.Anyway, while database &amp; middleware is where Oracle still makes most of its software revenue, most of its growth in software revenue is in applications, not databases &amp; middleware.
More in house platforms means more flexibility in building applications while avoiding paying some other vendor a profit premium.So, I'm not convinced there is a real "conflict of interest" here.
Certainly, Oracle's interests in developing MySQL will be different than an independent MySQL AB that didn't do anything buy MySQL and MySQL support would be, much as, frankly, Sun's interests were different, but having a different mix of interests isn't the same as having some kind of intolerable "conflict of interest".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810207</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29811079</id>
	<title>Is Oracle more evil than Microsoft?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256063700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wait.  I'm confused.  Oracle is now evil and Microsoft isn't evil?  When did this happen?  As a Microsoft hater do I need to hate Oracle now too?</p><p>I'm confused.  Is this some sort of plot by Bill Gates to divide and conquer?  What next!?</p><p>At least Steve Jobs is still okay.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...or is he?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait .
I 'm confused .
Oracle is now evil and Microsoft is n't evil ?
When did this happen ?
As a Microsoft hater do I need to hate Oracle now too ? I 'm confused .
Is this some sort of plot by Bill Gates to divide and conquer ?
What next !
? At least Steve Jobs is still okay .
...or is he ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait.
I'm confused.
Oracle is now evil and Microsoft isn't evil?
When did this happen?
As a Microsoft hater do I need to hate Oracle now too?I'm confused.
Is this some sort of plot by Bill Gates to divide and conquer?
What next!
?At least Steve Jobs is still okay.
...or is he?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29811133</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe I'm missing something..</title>
	<author>larry bagina</author>
	<datestamp>1256063820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
<i>MySQL uses the parallel licensing approach to generate revenue to continue the FLOSS development of the software</i>
</p><p>
Yes... and they did that when they were owned MySQL AB and they did that when they were owned by Sun. Did RMS speak out against it then?  Does he speak out in favor of SQLite, PostgreSQL and FireBird now?  (All of which are free as in freedom, not free as in herpes).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>MySQL uses the parallel licensing approach to generate revenue to continue the FLOSS development of the software Yes... and they did that when they were owned MySQL AB and they did that when they were owned by Sun .
Did RMS speak out against it then ?
Does he speak out in favor of SQLite , PostgreSQL and FireBird now ?
( All of which are free as in freedom , not free as in herpes ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
MySQL uses the parallel licensing approach to generate revenue to continue the FLOSS development of the software

Yes... and they did that when they were owned MySQL AB and they did that when they were owned by Sun.
Did RMS speak out against it then?
Does he speak out in favor of SQLite, PostgreSQL and FireBird now?
(All of which are free as in freedom, not free as in herpes).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810481</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810199</id>
	<title>sound like a good idea...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256060640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>hang on, Stallman thinks it is a good idea? The kiss of death!</htmltext>
<tokenext>hang on , Stallman thinks it is a good idea ?
The kiss of death !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>hang on, Stallman thinks it is a good idea?
The kiss of death!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29811775</id>
	<title>Re:Who cares what Widenius &amp; Stallman think?</title>
	<author>turbidostato</author>
	<datestamp>1256065980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"If it was that important to Widenius then why did he sell his company instead of holding onto it?"</p><p>Widenius didn't sell it to a big database owner but to a company that were it not that it's in fact bought by Oracle would be exactly the kind of "neutral third party" he is asking for now.</p><p>Not to say that Widenius wouldn't sell to Oracle back in the day (I don't know) but that his past actions are well aligned with his current sayings.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" If it was that important to Widenius then why did he sell his company instead of holding onto it ?
" Widenius did n't sell it to a big database owner but to a company that were it not that it 's in fact bought by Oracle would be exactly the kind of " neutral third party " he is asking for now.Not to say that Widenius would n't sell to Oracle back in the day ( I do n't know ) but that his past actions are well aligned with his current sayings .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"If it was that important to Widenius then why did he sell his company instead of holding onto it?
"Widenius didn't sell it to a big database owner but to a company that were it not that it's in fact bought by Oracle would be exactly the kind of "neutral third party" he is asking for now.Not to say that Widenius wouldn't sell to Oracle back in the day (I don't know) but that his past actions are well aligned with his current sayings.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810245</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810225</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe I'm missing something..</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1256060700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's GPL'd and requires copyright assignment.  That means that whoever owns it can release it under whatever license they like, including using it in proprietary products, while everyone else can only use it if they abide by the terms of the GPL.  Although, why anyone still cares about MySQL when there are better, more permissively licensed, alternatives available is beyond me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's GPL 'd and requires copyright assignment .
That means that whoever owns it can release it under whatever license they like , including using it in proprietary products , while everyone else can only use it if they abide by the terms of the GPL .
Although , why anyone still cares about MySQL when there are better , more permissively licensed , alternatives available is beyond me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's GPL'd and requires copyright assignment.
That means that whoever owns it can release it under whatever license they like, including using it in proprietary products, while everyone else can only use it if they abide by the terms of the GPL.
Although, why anyone still cares about MySQL when there are better, more permissively licensed, alternatives available is beyond me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29809977</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29812773</id>
	<title>Re:Bring on the hate</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1256069640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And what other OSS has Apple done this with exactly?</p><p>Go ahead and track it down, I'll wait.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And what other OSS has Apple done this with exactly ? Go ahead and track it down , I 'll wait .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And what other OSS has Apple done this with exactly?Go ahead and track it down, I'll wait.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810659</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29809977</id>
	<title>Maybe I'm missing something..</title>
	<author>amicusNYCL</author>
	<datestamp>1256059980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>MySQL is open source.  Why is there a big argument about who controls it?  If whoever is controlling it goes in a direction that people don't like, don't you just fork it?  If people really are worried about the future of MySQL, shouldn't there already be a fork?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>MySQL is open source .
Why is there a big argument about who controls it ?
If whoever is controlling it goes in a direction that people do n't like , do n't you just fork it ?
If people really are worried about the future of MySQL , should n't there already be a fork ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MySQL is open source.
Why is there a big argument about who controls it?
If whoever is controlling it goes in a direction that people don't like, don't you just fork it?
If people really are worried about the future of MySQL, shouldn't there already be a fork?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29813199</id>
	<title>Re:MaxDB?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256071680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nope, the real name of MySQL's MAxDB  is Adidas not Adibas. If Adidas technology will be at Oracle, some of biggest SAP customers notably Nike and Reebok will start buying Oracles product to get access to that technology. This is why SAP is trying to prevent the Oracle/SUN deal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nope , the real name of MySQL 's MAxDB is Adidas not Adibas .
If Adidas technology will be at Oracle , some of biggest SAP customers notably Nike and Reebok will start buying Oracles product to get access to that technology .
This is why SAP is trying to prevent the Oracle/SUN deal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nope, the real name of MySQL's MAxDB  is Adidas not Adibas.
If Adidas technology will be at Oracle, some of biggest SAP customers notably Nike and Reebok will start buying Oracles product to get access to that technology.
This is why SAP is trying to prevent the Oracle/SUN deal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29811511</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29819023</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe I'm missing something..</title>
	<author>Miamicanes</author>
	<datestamp>1256056680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; So I'd guess a forked F/OSS version of MySQL would need to call themselves something else, losing the name.</p><p>Personally, I'm rather fond of "rSQL". It's short, it's catchy, and neatly emphasizes the difference between the open source version ("our" SQL) and the new Oracle-centric proprietary branch ("*my* **My** ***MY*** Sql").</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; So I 'd guess a forked F/OSS version of MySQL would need to call themselves something else , losing the name.Personally , I 'm rather fond of " rSQL " .
It 's short , it 's catchy , and neatly emphasizes the difference between the open source version ( " our " SQL ) and the new Oracle-centric proprietary branch ( " * my * * * My * * * * * MY * * * Sql " ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; So I'd guess a forked F/OSS version of MySQL would need to call themselves something else, losing the name.Personally, I'm rather fond of "rSQL".
It's short, it's catchy, and neatly emphasizes the difference between the open source version ("our" SQL) and the new Oracle-centric proprietary branch ("*my* **My** ***MY*** Sql").</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810481</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810347</id>
	<title>...rd</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256061060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>3rd party</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>3rd party</tokentext>
<sentencetext>3rd party</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29812987</id>
	<title>Re:Your input has been noted</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1256070600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you think the only reason Oracle bought Sun was to kill a perceived competition from MySQL then you are seriously out of touch with reality.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you think the only reason Oracle bought Sun was to kill a perceived competition from MySQL then you are seriously out of touch with reality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you think the only reason Oracle bought Sun was to kill a perceived competition from MySQL then you are seriously out of touch with reality.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29811187</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29815263</id>
	<title>Just fork it</title>
	<author>techsoldaten</author>
	<datestamp>1256035800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just fork it. I am never going to use Oracle MySQL for anything, I would sooner switch to PostGres for everything I do.</p><p>M</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just fork it .
I am never going to use Oracle MySQL for anything , I would sooner switch to PostGres for everything I do.M</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just fork it.
I am never going to use Oracle MySQL for anything, I would sooner switch to PostGres for everything I do.M</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29869203</id>
	<title>Loved to death</title>
	<author>EmperorOfCanada</author>
	<datestamp>1256494740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oracle will throw money and love at MySQL until it is dead. If I were Oracle (and wanted MySQL dead) I would fund as many forks of MySQL as possible. Ideally I would fund the forks run by the biggest bozos with huge egos and who love to spend money marketing (My MySQL is better than yours). I would also allow each of the forks to call themselves the official MySQL fork so as to confuse everyone. On top of that I would create a byzantine approval process for these forks so that any I don't like would have to change its name from MySQL.

Then I could prove to the various anti-trust investigators how much I (Oracle) loved MySQL and that we did nothing but support a vibrant and competitive community. And if any of the forks begins to take off I would pull the rug out from underthem and give money to whomever was causing them the most problems. This might cost Oracle a few 10's of millions but I can't imaging the number in lost sales the MySQL has cost Oracle over the years. Billions?

If I can think of this in 5 minutes what can the Oracle marketing people come up with?

If I were an anti-trust government organization I would force Oracle to hand MySQL back to the original creators for a buck and let them carry on as they were.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oracle will throw money and love at MySQL until it is dead .
If I were Oracle ( and wanted MySQL dead ) I would fund as many forks of MySQL as possible .
Ideally I would fund the forks run by the biggest bozos with huge egos and who love to spend money marketing ( My MySQL is better than yours ) .
I would also allow each of the forks to call themselves the official MySQL fork so as to confuse everyone .
On top of that I would create a byzantine approval process for these forks so that any I do n't like would have to change its name from MySQL .
Then I could prove to the various anti-trust investigators how much I ( Oracle ) loved MySQL and that we did nothing but support a vibrant and competitive community .
And if any of the forks begins to take off I would pull the rug out from underthem and give money to whomever was causing them the most problems .
This might cost Oracle a few 10 's of millions but I ca n't imaging the number in lost sales the MySQL has cost Oracle over the years .
Billions ? If I can think of this in 5 minutes what can the Oracle marketing people come up with ?
If I were an anti-trust government organization I would force Oracle to hand MySQL back to the original creators for a buck and let them carry on as they were .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oracle will throw money and love at MySQL until it is dead.
If I were Oracle (and wanted MySQL dead) I would fund as many forks of MySQL as possible.
Ideally I would fund the forks run by the biggest bozos with huge egos and who love to spend money marketing (My MySQL is better than yours).
I would also allow each of the forks to call themselves the official MySQL fork so as to confuse everyone.
On top of that I would create a byzantine approval process for these forks so that any I don't like would have to change its name from MySQL.
Then I could prove to the various anti-trust investigators how much I (Oracle) loved MySQL and that we did nothing but support a vibrant and competitive community.
And if any of the forks begins to take off I would pull the rug out from underthem and give money to whomever was causing them the most problems.
This might cost Oracle a few 10's of millions but I can't imaging the number in lost sales the MySQL has cost Oracle over the years.
Billions?

If I can think of this in 5 minutes what can the Oracle marketing people come up with?
If I were an anti-trust government organization I would force Oracle to hand MySQL back to the original creators for a buck and let them carry on as they were.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29809967</id>
	<title>Should Sell Database To a Neutral 3d Party</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256059980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>SCO?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>SCO ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>SCO?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29815019</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe I'm missing something..</title>
	<author>davecb</author>
	<datestamp>1256034840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There isn't a real arguement at all: it's recently come out that a/the objector to MySQL going to Oracle was Microsoft. I <i>strongly</i> suspect it's a put-up job, astroturfing the EC to hurt a competitor.

</p><p>--dave (who want the deal to complete so he can get more capacity planning gigs) c-b</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is n't a real arguement at all : it 's recently come out that a/the objector to MySQL going to Oracle was Microsoft .
I strongly suspect it 's a put-up job , astroturfing the EC to hurt a competitor .
--dave ( who want the deal to complete so he can get more capacity planning gigs ) c-b</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There isn't a real arguement at all: it's recently come out that a/the objector to MySQL going to Oracle was Microsoft.
I strongly suspect it's a put-up job, astroturfing the EC to hurt a competitor.
--dave (who want the deal to complete so he can get more capacity planning gigs) c-b</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29809977</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29829267</id>
	<title>Re:Is Oracle more evil than Microsoft?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256122260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't worry, Gates still guards the Gates of Hell and Ballmer still has all the computer manufacturers by the balls.</p><p>In related news:<br>Satan was unconvinced in switching to Windows 7. Regarding the EULA, he was reported to have said, "I know a deal with the devil when I see one."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't worry , Gates still guards the Gates of Hell and Ballmer still has all the computer manufacturers by the balls.In related news : Satan was unconvinced in switching to Windows 7 .
Regarding the EULA , he was reported to have said , " I know a deal with the devil when I see one .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't worry, Gates still guards the Gates of Hell and Ballmer still has all the computer manufacturers by the balls.In related news:Satan was unconvinced in switching to Windows 7.
Regarding the EULA, he was reported to have said, "I know a deal with the devil when I see one.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29811079</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29811099</id>
	<title>Re:Bring on the hate</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256063760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They'd just change the name to "iSQL"...</htmltext>
<tokenext>They 'd just change the name to " iSQL " .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They'd just change the name to "iSQL"...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810159</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810055</id>
	<title>How about Google?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256060220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They have one-of-everything-else already.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They have one-of-everything-else already .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They have one-of-everything-else already.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29811617</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe I'm missing something..</title>
	<author>turbidostato</author>
	<datestamp>1256065560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"So basically, RMS is concerned that Oracle really would fork MySQL, and end the dual-licensing for any future versions they release."</p><p>Where have you read that in RMS's letter?</p><p>As I read it, RMS is concerned not because Oracle will close future MySQL development but because they will be the only ones that can profit from dual licensing MySQL and they won't do that because it would make it competing against their cash cow.  Oracle would be much better served if they allow MySQL to slowly stagnate -and the point is that they can do it since noone else will be able to cash out the dual license path, than if they close the shop allowing for a faster substitution from another open alternative.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" So basically , RMS is concerned that Oracle really would fork MySQL , and end the dual-licensing for any future versions they release .
" Where have you read that in RMS 's letter ? As I read it , RMS is concerned not because Oracle will close future MySQL development but because they will be the only ones that can profit from dual licensing MySQL and they wo n't do that because it would make it competing against their cash cow .
Oracle would be much better served if they allow MySQL to slowly stagnate -and the point is that they can do it since noone else will be able to cash out the dual license path , than if they close the shop allowing for a faster substitution from another open alternative .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"So basically, RMS is concerned that Oracle really would fork MySQL, and end the dual-licensing for any future versions they release.
"Where have you read that in RMS's letter?As I read it, RMS is concerned not because Oracle will close future MySQL development but because they will be the only ones that can profit from dual licensing MySQL and they won't do that because it would make it competing against their cash cow.
Oracle would be much better served if they allow MySQL to slowly stagnate -and the point is that they can do it since noone else will be able to cash out the dual license path, than if they close the shop allowing for a faster substitution from another open alternative.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810481</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29884223</id>
	<title>Re:Is Monte only looking out for himself</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256660160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was looking for the first person to mention SAP in this.  I'd be willing to bet they've been petitioning the EU.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was looking for the first person to mention SAP in this .
I 'd be willing to bet they 've been petitioning the EU .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was looking for the first person to mention SAP in this.
I'd be willing to bet they've been petitioning the EU.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810645</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810267</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe I'm missing something..</title>
	<author>geekmansworld</author>
	<datestamp>1256060820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is that MySQL the company is a significant contributor to MySQL the project. Personally, I see a lot of value in MySQL, but lately the open-source community's love seems to be shifting to PostgreSQL. So I'm guessing that there's some question as to whether the MySQL project could go it alone without the resources the company provides.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that MySQL the company is a significant contributor to MySQL the project .
Personally , I see a lot of value in MySQL , but lately the open-source community 's love seems to be shifting to PostgreSQL .
So I 'm guessing that there 's some question as to whether the MySQL project could go it alone without the resources the company provides .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is that MySQL the company is a significant contributor to MySQL the project.
Personally, I see a lot of value in MySQL, but lately the open-source community's love seems to be shifting to PostgreSQL.
So I'm guessing that there's some question as to whether the MySQL project could go it alone without the resources the company provides.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29809977</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810461</id>
	<title>Re:3D?</title>
	<author>Bat Country</author>
	<datestamp>1256061420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The best thing about 3d parties are all the 3d women.
All that proprietary "<a href="http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/1999/10/18/" title="penny-arcade.com">boob-jubbling technology</a> [penny-arcade.com]."</htmltext>
<tokenext>The best thing about 3d parties are all the 3d women .
All that proprietary " boob-jubbling technology [ penny-arcade.com ] .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The best thing about 3d parties are all the 3d women.
All that proprietary "boob-jubbling technology [penny-arcade.com].
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29809945</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810243</id>
	<title>Like Yogi Berra says</title>
	<author>ClosedSource</author>
	<datestamp>1256060760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you come to a MySQL fork in the road, take it proprietary.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you come to a MySQL fork in the road , take it proprietary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you come to a MySQL fork in the road, take it proprietary.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29809977</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29811187</id>
	<title>Re:Your input has been noted</title>
	<author>icebike</author>
	<datestamp>1256063940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly.</p><p>He took the money.</p><p>It had always been quasi open-source, and free to use, and he sold it to Sun.  Now when it is acquired by a company who's only purpose for buying Sun was to kill this product and eat its heart he gets religion?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly.He took the money.It had always been quasi open-source , and free to use , and he sold it to Sun .
Now when it is acquired by a company who 's only purpose for buying Sun was to kill this product and eat its heart he gets religion ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.He took the money.It had always been quasi open-source, and free to use, and he sold it to Sun.
Now when it is acquired by a company who's only purpose for buying Sun was to kill this product and eat its heart he gets religion?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29809973</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29811289</id>
	<title>A suggested alternative</title>
	<author>petrus4</author>
	<datestamp>1256064360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I invite people to investigate PostgreSQL.</p><p>I was going to outline a list of its' features, but said list is very large, so I'll paste the address instead, so you can go and check it out for yourselves:-  <a href="http://www.postgresql.org/about/featurematrix" title="postgresql.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.postgresql.org/about/featurematrix</a> [postgresql.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I invite people to investigate PostgreSQL.I was going to outline a list of its ' features , but said list is very large , so I 'll paste the address instead , so you can go and check it out for yourselves : - http : //www.postgresql.org/about/featurematrix [ postgresql.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I invite people to investigate PostgreSQL.I was going to outline a list of its' features, but said list is very large, so I'll paste the address instead, so you can go and check it out for yourselves:-  http://www.postgresql.org/about/featurematrix [postgresql.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29811351</id>
	<title>Re:Big business kills everything...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256064540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fixed.</p><p>(Sarcastic responses from rabid, clueless, brainwashed, American white male capitalist fanatics incoming)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fixed .
( Sarcastic responses from rabid , clueless , brainwashed , American white male capitalist fanatics incoming )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fixed.
(Sarcastic responses from rabid, clueless, brainwashed, American white male capitalist fanatics incoming)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810433</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29811163</id>
	<title>Re:Bring on the hate</title>
	<author>jonbryce</author>
	<datestamp>1256063880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can run CUPS on your Ubuntu box without any problems.  Why should MySQL be any different?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can run CUPS on your Ubuntu box without any problems .
Why should MySQL be any different ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can run CUPS on your Ubuntu box without any problems.
Why should MySQL be any different?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810659</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810701</id>
	<title>Re:Bring on the hate</title>
	<author>geekmansworld</author>
	<datestamp>1256062320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Ummm.... Filemaker?</p></div><p>Eh... I don't know if you can equate front-end-oriented database apps like Filemaker and Access to SQL-server products. Besides, if Apple owned MySQL, would they really neglect it in favour of Filemaker Server?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>It is?</p></div><p>I suppose it depends on who you ask. In my web-development circles, you need a database backend. Because MySQL comes pre-installed on OS X Server, it's sort of the default choice. So perhaps "essential" should have been "important".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ummm.... Filemaker ? Eh... I do n't know if you can equate front-end-oriented database apps like Filemaker and Access to SQL-server products .
Besides , if Apple owned MySQL , would they really neglect it in favour of Filemaker Server ? It is ? I suppose it depends on who you ask .
In my web-development circles , you need a database backend .
Because MySQL comes pre-installed on OS X Server , it 's sort of the default choice .
So perhaps " essential " should have been " important " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ummm.... Filemaker?Eh... I don't know if you can equate front-end-oriented database apps like Filemaker and Access to SQL-server products.
Besides, if Apple owned MySQL, would they really neglect it in favour of Filemaker Server?It is?I suppose it depends on who you ask.
In my web-development circles, you need a database backend.
Because MySQL comes pre-installed on OS X Server, it's sort of the default choice.
So perhaps "essential" should have been "important".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810159</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29811331</id>
	<title>Re:wow</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256064540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Oracle had completely moved their hardware platform to Linux from Solaris because of an earlier spat with Sun.</p></div><p>That's funny how they both completely moved their hardware platform to Linux and yet they still sold tons of their product running it on Solaris.  Methinks you know shit about what you are talking about.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oracle had completely moved their hardware platform to Linux from Solaris because of an earlier spat with Sun.That 's funny how they both completely moved their hardware platform to Linux and yet they still sold tons of their product running it on Solaris .
Methinks you know shit about what you are talking about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oracle had completely moved their hardware platform to Linux from Solaris because of an earlier spat with Sun.That's funny how they both completely moved their hardware platform to Linux and yet they still sold tons of their product running it on Solaris.
Methinks you know shit about what you are talking about.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810977</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810977</id>
	<title>Re:wow</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256063400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know you're talking about Sun's acquisition of MySQL, but the acquisition of Sun by Oracle never made sense. Sun possessed virtually nothing I could see that Oracle might want. Oracle had completely moved their hardware platform to Linux from Solaris because of an earlier spat with Sun. I have a sneaking suspicion that Oracle was covering their ass from some possible GPL infringement with MySQL. Nothing else makes sense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know you 're talking about Sun 's acquisition of MySQL , but the acquisition of Sun by Oracle never made sense .
Sun possessed virtually nothing I could see that Oracle might want .
Oracle had completely moved their hardware platform to Linux from Solaris because of an earlier spat with Sun .
I have a sneaking suspicion that Oracle was covering their ass from some possible GPL infringement with MySQL .
Nothing else makes sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know you're talking about Sun's acquisition of MySQL, but the acquisition of Sun by Oracle never made sense.
Sun possessed virtually nothing I could see that Oracle might want.
Oracle had completely moved their hardware platform to Linux from Solaris because of an earlier spat with Sun.
I have a sneaking suspicion that Oracle was covering their ass from some possible GPL infringement with MySQL.
Nothing else makes sense.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810527</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29811421</id>
	<title>The database is dying technology anyways!</title>
	<author>ericspinder</author>
	<datestamp>1256064840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Flame bait, probably,  but I was wondering what people thought of <a href="http://www.terracotta.org/" title="terracotta.org">Terracotta, and technology like it</a> [terracotta.org].</htmltext>
<tokenext>Flame bait , probably , but I was wondering what people thought of Terracotta , and technology like it [ terracotta.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Flame bait, probably,  but I was wondering what people thought of Terracotta, and technology like it [terracotta.org].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810175</id>
	<title>Neutral 3rd Party?  Let's See Here ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256060520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>MySQL Cofounder Says Oracle Should Sell Database To a <b>Neutral</b> 3d Party</p></div><p>So that leaves us with?</p><blockquote><div><p> <tt>mysql&gt; use companies;<br>Database changed<br>mysql&gt; select * from parties where bias = null;<br>Empty set (0.00 sec)</tt></p></div> </blockquote><p>Hmmm<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>MySQL Cofounder Says Oracle Should Sell Database To a Neutral 3d PartySo that leaves us with ?
mysql &gt; use companies ; Database changedmysql &gt; select * from parties where bias = null ; Empty set ( 0.00 sec ) Hmmm ... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MySQL Cofounder Says Oracle Should Sell Database To a Neutral 3d PartySo that leaves us with?
mysql&gt; use companies;Database changedmysql&gt; select * from parties where bias = null;Empty set (0.00 sec) Hmmm ....
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29817393</id>
	<title>Re:Is Oracle more evil than Microsoft?</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1256046540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Only Google is left! All hail the holy spirit of Google up in the cloud(s)!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Only Google is left !
All hail the holy spirit of Google up in the cloud ( s ) !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Only Google is left!
All hail the holy spirit of Google up in the cloud(s)!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29811079</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810283</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe I'm missing something..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256060880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or move over to another F/OSS database. Postgres has outdone mysql for "enterprise" features for many years (anyone else remember mysql people telling you that transactions were something that should be handled outside the database?) with the exception of replication support, and sqlite reportedly outperforms it in its traditional market (few writes but many selects over simple but potentially large structures). There are other options out there. A fork would face the same problem these other options have: mysql, the "official" version where-ever that lives these days, has a large amount of market inertia.</p><p>(I'm not trying to grind an anti-mysql axe here, though I do prefer the other options myself depending on circumstances, just pointing out that a fork would only be any good to the market if enough people use it and getting that elusive "enough people" market share might not be easy)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or move over to another F/OSS database .
Postgres has outdone mysql for " enterprise " features for many years ( anyone else remember mysql people telling you that transactions were something that should be handled outside the database ?
) with the exception of replication support , and sqlite reportedly outperforms it in its traditional market ( few writes but many selects over simple but potentially large structures ) .
There are other options out there .
A fork would face the same problem these other options have : mysql , the " official " version where-ever that lives these days , has a large amount of market inertia .
( I 'm not trying to grind an anti-mysql axe here , though I do prefer the other options myself depending on circumstances , just pointing out that a fork would only be any good to the market if enough people use it and getting that elusive " enough people " market share might not be easy )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or move over to another F/OSS database.
Postgres has outdone mysql for "enterprise" features for many years (anyone else remember mysql people telling you that transactions were something that should be handled outside the database?
) with the exception of replication support, and sqlite reportedly outperforms it in its traditional market (few writes but many selects over simple but potentially large structures).
There are other options out there.
A fork would face the same problem these other options have: mysql, the "official" version where-ever that lives these days, has a large amount of market inertia.
(I'm not trying to grind an anti-mysql axe here, though I do prefer the other options myself depending on circumstances, just pointing out that a fork would only be any good to the market if enough people use it and getting that elusive "enough people" market share might not be easy)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29809977</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29811261</id>
	<title>10 months worth of MySQL</title>
	<author>Glasswire</author>
	<datestamp>1256064180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sun paid about 1 billion for MsSQL and Oracle says EU hold up is costing them 100s of millions of dollars a month by delaying decision which appears to largely hinge on Oracle's plans for MySQL.  So Oracle must value it very highly since with a few more months of delay, Oracle reluctance to let it go will cost it more than it's worth.<br>So why does Oracle care that much about MySQL?  One can speculate...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sun paid about 1 billion for MsSQL and Oracle says EU hold up is costing them 100s of millions of dollars a month by delaying decision which appears to largely hinge on Oracle 's plans for MySQL .
So Oracle must value it very highly since with a few more months of delay , Oracle reluctance to let it go will cost it more than it 's worth.So why does Oracle care that much about MySQL ?
One can speculate.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sun paid about 1 billion for MsSQL and Oracle says EU hold up is costing them 100s of millions of dollars a month by delaying decision which appears to largely hinge on Oracle's plans for MySQL.
So Oracle must value it very highly since with a few more months of delay, Oracle reluctance to let it go will cost it more than it's worth.So why does Oracle care that much about MySQL?
One can speculate...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29819483</id>
	<title>Re:Big business kills open source...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256060460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And something like 6 months later it was announced that nVidia won the contract to make the graphics chips on the original Microsoft X-Box.  Coincidence?</p></div><p>Yes. Don't be daft.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And something like 6 months later it was announced that nVidia won the contract to make the graphics chips on the original Microsoft X-Box .
Coincidence ? Yes. Do n't be daft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And something like 6 months later it was announced that nVidia won the contract to make the graphics chips on the original Microsoft X-Box.
Coincidence?Yes. Don't be daft.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810433</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29811329</id>
	<title>and Berkley DB?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256064540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The letter by RMS addresses that question. That being that the commercially licensed version of MySQL funded suns continued development of the GPL'ed MySQL, and oracle would have a conflict of interest in continuing to develop and license a low cost alternative to its high priced core product.</p></div><p>You mean like Oracle's ownership of Berkley DB?</p><p>Or is Monty still bitter about Oracle purchasing InnoDB?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The letter by RMS addresses that question .
That being that the commercially licensed version of MySQL funded suns continued development of the GPL'ed MySQL , and oracle would have a conflict of interest in continuing to develop and license a low cost alternative to its high priced core product.You mean like Oracle 's ownership of Berkley DB ? Or is Monty still bitter about Oracle purchasing InnoDB ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The letter by RMS addresses that question.
That being that the commercially licensed version of MySQL funded suns continued development of the GPL'ed MySQL, and oracle would have a conflict of interest in continuing to develop and license a low cost alternative to its high priced core product.You mean like Oracle's ownership of Berkley DB?Or is Monty still bitter about Oracle purchasing InnoDB?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810207</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29826301</id>
	<title>Re:Big business kills everything...</title>
	<author>Hognoxious</author>
	<datestamp>1256152440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unless you basically live like the Amish[1] then aren't you being just a little bit hypocritical?</p><p>[1] Not saying there's anything wrong with it, by the way, if it's what floats your raft[2].<br>[2] Boats, with their pointy ends and all, are the work of the devil.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless you basically live like the Amish [ 1 ] then are n't you being just a little bit hypocritical ?
[ 1 ] Not saying there 's anything wrong with it , by the way , if it 's what floats your raft [ 2 ] .
[ 2 ] Boats , with their pointy ends and all , are the work of the devil .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless you basically live like the Amish[1] then aren't you being just a little bit hypocritical?
[1] Not saying there's anything wrong with it, by the way, if it's what floats your raft[2].
[2] Boats, with their pointy ends and all, are the work of the devil.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29811351</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810573</id>
	<title>MySQL has been accepted because Oracle owns it</title>
	<author>shoppa</author>
	<datestamp>1256061840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On several occasions I've been able to convince customers that MySQL was good enough but only because Oracle owned it:</p><blockquote><div><p> <strong>Here's an app, I'm using MySQL</strong><br>You can't use MySQL, we're an Oracle shop<br><strong>Oracle owns MySQL</strong><br>Well, then, that's OK then</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>On several occasions I 've been able to convince customers that MySQL was good enough but only because Oracle owned it : Here 's an app , I 'm using MySQLYou ca n't use MySQL , we 're an Oracle shopOracle owns MySQLWell , then , that 's OK then</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On several occasions I've been able to convince customers that MySQL was good enough but only because Oracle owned it: Here's an app, I'm using MySQLYou can't use MySQL, we're an Oracle shopOracle owns MySQLWell, then, that's OK then
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810159</id>
	<title>Bring on the hate</title>
	<author>geekmansworld</author>
	<datestamp>1256060520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Okay, here goes... Maybe they should sell it to Apple?</p><p>Yes, hate me, throw things at me. But Apple DOES love MySQL, it's an essential part of OS X Server. Unlike Oracle, IBM and Microsoft, Apple doesn't own an existing database product. Also keep in mind that MySQL the commercial product is not necessarily synonymous to MySQL the open-source project.</p><p>Unfortunately, MySQL uses the GPL, whereas Apple has always preferred to open-source under the Apache license.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay , here goes... Maybe they should sell it to Apple ? Yes , hate me , throw things at me .
But Apple DOES love MySQL , it 's an essential part of OS X Server .
Unlike Oracle , IBM and Microsoft , Apple does n't own an existing database product .
Also keep in mind that MySQL the commercial product is not necessarily synonymous to MySQL the open-source project.Unfortunately , MySQL uses the GPL , whereas Apple has always preferred to open-source under the Apache license .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Okay, here goes... Maybe they should sell it to Apple?Yes, hate me, throw things at me.
But Apple DOES love MySQL, it's an essential part of OS X Server.
Unlike Oracle, IBM and Microsoft, Apple doesn't own an existing database product.
Also keep in mind that MySQL the commercial product is not necessarily synonymous to MySQL the open-source project.Unfortunately, MySQL uses the GPL, whereas Apple has always preferred to open-source under the Apache license.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810245</id>
	<title>Who cares what Widenius &amp; Stallman think?</title>
	<author>ReallyEvilCanine</author>
	<datestamp>1256060760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If it was that important to Widenius then why did he sell his company instead of holding onto it? And Stallman giving business advice to anyone is like a vegetarian giving tips on how to slow-barbecue whale liver.
<p>
Is mySQL open source? If not, it doesn't matter that Larry owns it. If it is, it can fork. End of discussion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it was that important to Widenius then why did he sell his company instead of holding onto it ?
And Stallman giving business advice to anyone is like a vegetarian giving tips on how to slow-barbecue whale liver .
Is mySQL open source ?
If not , it does n't matter that Larry owns it .
If it is , it can fork .
End of discussion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it was that important to Widenius then why did he sell his company instead of holding onto it?
And Stallman giving business advice to anyone is like a vegetarian giving tips on how to slow-barbecue whale liver.
Is mySQL open source?
If not, it doesn't matter that Larry owns it.
If it is, it can fork.
End of discussion.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810317</id>
	<title>There is more to it than that</title>
	<author>capt.Hij</author>
	<datestamp>1256061000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is more to the project than just the source. First, some of the people are still working for Sun/Oracle. Their expertise is kind of important, and it is not so easy to just pick up the source and start making changes.</p><p>The other issue is the documentation. That is not so free. The mysql documentation is considerable and is a tremendous resource. Back in the day, it was the deciding reason that I went with mysql. If I went on purely technical requirements alone I would have likely chosen a different platform.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is more to the project than just the source .
First , some of the people are still working for Sun/Oracle .
Their expertise is kind of important , and it is not so easy to just pick up the source and start making changes.The other issue is the documentation .
That is not so free .
The mysql documentation is considerable and is a tremendous resource .
Back in the day , it was the deciding reason that I went with mysql .
If I went on purely technical requirements alone I would have likely chosen a different platform .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is more to the project than just the source.
First, some of the people are still working for Sun/Oracle.
Their expertise is kind of important, and it is not so easy to just pick up the source and start making changes.The other issue is the documentation.
That is not so free.
The mysql documentation is considerable and is a tremendous resource.
Back in the day, it was the deciding reason that I went with mysql.
If I went on purely technical requirements alone I would have likely chosen a different platform.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29809977</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29814191</id>
	<title>Re:Your input has been noted</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256032020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why the premise that "to kill this product" ?!?!</p><p>If you know anything about MySQL you know that without InnoDB it is not really usable (not better then ton of other free / open source sql servers, almost no improvements since 4.1 etc etc). So, the only free / open source storage engine for mysql that support transactions is InnoDB.</p><p>Now, remember who owns InnoDB???? ORACLE !!!</p><p>So, Oracle purchased Innobase years ago, and if they wanted to kill MySQL they just had to stop funding the InnoDB team and without usable transactional engine MySQL would die and PostgreSQL would take total dominance over the market MySQL covered / now covers, but what happened - Oracle invested in InnoDB and made it good!!! Kept it open source!!!</p><p>Now, if you think about it, Oracle have easy and cheap way to kill MySQL for years now, why would they spend all the money and energy now and "kill this product".... Do you really think that someone who makes that much money as Oracle does can be that stupid? They already own the most important part of MySQL, and they are the reason MySQL is good today. The FUD Monty is spreading because SUN did not give him the spot he wanted, and because he would like to milk some more money out of it (he is not satisfied that they actually released him from the "cannot work for competition" contract out of their good will but he want more... ~30-40 million eur was just not covering his plans for the future ?!) is just not based on facts. Not to mention Stallmans FUD about "licence not being good" - for God sake - he wrote the GPL 2 ?!?!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why the premise that " to kill this product " ? ! ?
! If you know anything about MySQL you know that without InnoDB it is not really usable ( not better then ton of other free / open source sql servers , almost no improvements since 4.1 etc etc ) .
So , the only free / open source storage engine for mysql that support transactions is InnoDB.Now , remember who owns InnoDB ? ? ? ?
ORACLE ! !
! So , Oracle purchased Innobase years ago , and if they wanted to kill MySQL they just had to stop funding the InnoDB team and without usable transactional engine MySQL would die and PostgreSQL would take total dominance over the market MySQL covered / now covers , but what happened - Oracle invested in InnoDB and made it good ! ! !
Kept it open source ! !
! Now , if you think about it , Oracle have easy and cheap way to kill MySQL for years now , why would they spend all the money and energy now and " kill this product " .... Do you really think that someone who makes that much money as Oracle does can be that stupid ?
They already own the most important part of MySQL , and they are the reason MySQL is good today .
The FUD Monty is spreading because SUN did not give him the spot he wanted , and because he would like to milk some more money out of it ( he is not satisfied that they actually released him from the " can not work for competition " contract out of their good will but he want more... ~ 30-40 million eur was just not covering his plans for the future ? !
) is just not based on facts .
Not to mention Stallmans FUD about " licence not being good " - for God sake - he wrote the GPL 2 ? ! ?
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why the premise that "to kill this product" ?!?
!If you know anything about MySQL you know that without InnoDB it is not really usable (not better then ton of other free / open source sql servers, almost no improvements since 4.1 etc etc).
So, the only free / open source storage engine for mysql that support transactions is InnoDB.Now, remember who owns InnoDB????
ORACLE !!
!So, Oracle purchased Innobase years ago, and if they wanted to kill MySQL they just had to stop funding the InnoDB team and without usable transactional engine MySQL would die and PostgreSQL would take total dominance over the market MySQL covered / now covers, but what happened - Oracle invested in InnoDB and made it good!!!
Kept it open source!!
!Now, if you think about it, Oracle have easy and cheap way to kill MySQL for years now, why would they spend all the money and energy now and "kill this product".... Do you really think that someone who makes that much money as Oracle does can be that stupid?
They already own the most important part of MySQL, and they are the reason MySQL is good today.
The FUD Monty is spreading because SUN did not give him the spot he wanted, and because he would like to milk some more money out of it (he is not satisfied that they actually released him from the "cannot work for competition" contract out of their good will but he want more... ~30-40 million eur was just not covering his plans for the future ?!
) is just not based on facts.
Not to mention Stallmans FUD about "licence not being good" - for God sake - he wrote the GPL 2 ?!?
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29811187</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29809973</id>
	<title>Your input has been noted</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256059980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll take "Things you should have thought about before selling to Sun" for 1000 Alex</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll take " Things you should have thought about before selling to Sun " for 1000 Alex</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll take "Things you should have thought about before selling to Sun" for 1000 Alex</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810367</id>
	<title>ONE BILLION DOLLARS, MUHAHAHAH</title>
	<author>ShaggyZet</author>
	<datestamp>1256061180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sounds like a good plan. Now if they can only find a neutral 3rd party dumb enough to pay anything close to $1 billion for it. How about Computer Associates, isn't that where bad software goes to die?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like a good plan .
Now if they can only find a neutral 3rd party dumb enough to pay anything close to $ 1 billion for it .
How about Computer Associates , is n't that where bad software goes to die ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like a good plan.
Now if they can only find a neutral 3rd party dumb enough to pay anything close to $1 billion for it.
How about Computer Associates, isn't that where bad software goes to die?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810433</id>
	<title>Big business kills open source...</title>
	<author>Kate6</author>
	<datestamp>1256061360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
This makes me think of nVidia's purchase of 3dfx.  3dfx (makers of the famous Voodoo series of video cards) were very friendly to the open source community...  They played a very pivotal role in the realm of 3D rendering on Linux when it was still in its infancy, contributing significantly to OpenGL.  Then nVidia bought them and discontinued its entire product line...  And something like 6 months later it was announced that nVidia won the contract to make the graphics chips on the original Microsoft X-Box.  Coincidence?
</p><p>
MySQL, by virtue of being an open source product available in a "community" version for free, has become a central part of the business model of countless small businesses.  And it's just fallen into the ownership of its biggest closed-source, for-pay competitor.  This could potentially have ramifications for the global economy as a whole.  Very scary.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This makes me think of nVidia 's purchase of 3dfx .
3dfx ( makers of the famous Voodoo series of video cards ) were very friendly to the open source community... They played a very pivotal role in the realm of 3D rendering on Linux when it was still in its infancy , contributing significantly to OpenGL .
Then nVidia bought them and discontinued its entire product line... And something like 6 months later it was announced that nVidia won the contract to make the graphics chips on the original Microsoft X-Box .
Coincidence ? MySQL , by virtue of being an open source product available in a " community " version for free , has become a central part of the business model of countless small businesses .
And it 's just fallen into the ownership of its biggest closed-source , for-pay competitor .
This could potentially have ramifications for the global economy as a whole .
Very scary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
This makes me think of nVidia's purchase of 3dfx.
3dfx (makers of the famous Voodoo series of video cards) were very friendly to the open source community...  They played a very pivotal role in the realm of 3D rendering on Linux when it was still in its infancy, contributing significantly to OpenGL.
Then nVidia bought them and discontinued its entire product line...  And something like 6 months later it was announced that nVidia won the contract to make the graphics chips on the original Microsoft X-Box.
Coincidence?

MySQL, by virtue of being an open source product available in a "community" version for free, has become a central part of the business model of countless small businesses.
And it's just fallen into the ownership of its biggest closed-source, for-pay competitor.
This could potentially have ramifications for the global economy as a whole.
Very scary.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810211</id>
	<title>Re:3D?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256060640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Yeah, those 2D parties are shallow and make for thin plots.</p></div><p>That joke had a lot of depth to it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , those 2D parties are shallow and make for thin plots.That joke had a lot of depth to it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, those 2D parties are shallow and make for thin plots.That joke had a lot of depth to it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29809945</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810481</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe I'm missing something..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256061540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's what RMS said in the letter:</p><blockquote><div><p>MySQL uses the parallel licensing approach to generate revenue to continue the FLOSS development of the software. If Oracle acquired MySQL, it would then be the only entity able to release the code other than under the GPL. Oracle would not be obligated to diligently sell or reasonably price the MySQL commercial licenses. More importantly, Oracle is under no obligation to use the revenues from these licenses to advance MySQL. In making decisions in these matters, Oracle is facing an obvious conflict of interest - the continued development of a powerful, feature rich free alternative to its core product.</p><p>As only the original rights holder can sell commercial licenses, no new forked version of the code will have the ability to practice the parallel licensing approach, and will not easily generate the resources to support continued development of the MySQL platform.</p><p>The acquisition of MySQL by Oracle will be a major setback to the development of a FLOSS database platform, potentially alienating and dispersing MySQL's core community of developers. It could take several years before another database platform could rival the progress and opportunities now available to MySQL, because it will take time before any of them attract and cultivate a large enough team of developers and achieve a similar customer base.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>So basically, RMS is concerned that Oracle really would <em>fork</em> MySQL, and end the dual-licensing for any future versions they release. This effectively would make the Oracle fork of MySQL into proprietary or "closed source" software.</p><p>And Oracle would likely keep the "MySQL" name, because Oracle <em>really</em> wants that brand recognition in the low-end database market, competing with MS-SQL. So I'd guess a forked F/OSS version of MySQL would need to call themselves something else, losing the name.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's what RMS said in the letter : MySQL uses the parallel licensing approach to generate revenue to continue the FLOSS development of the software .
If Oracle acquired MySQL , it would then be the only entity able to release the code other than under the GPL .
Oracle would not be obligated to diligently sell or reasonably price the MySQL commercial licenses .
More importantly , Oracle is under no obligation to use the revenues from these licenses to advance MySQL .
In making decisions in these matters , Oracle is facing an obvious conflict of interest - the continued development of a powerful , feature rich free alternative to its core product.As only the original rights holder can sell commercial licenses , no new forked version of the code will have the ability to practice the parallel licensing approach , and will not easily generate the resources to support continued development of the MySQL platform.The acquisition of MySQL by Oracle will be a major setback to the development of a FLOSS database platform , potentially alienating and dispersing MySQL 's core community of developers .
It could take several years before another database platform could rival the progress and opportunities now available to MySQL , because it will take time before any of them attract and cultivate a large enough team of developers and achieve a similar customer base .
So basically , RMS is concerned that Oracle really would fork MySQL , and end the dual-licensing for any future versions they release .
This effectively would make the Oracle fork of MySQL into proprietary or " closed source " software.And Oracle would likely keep the " MySQL " name , because Oracle really wants that brand recognition in the low-end database market , competing with MS-SQL .
So I 'd guess a forked F/OSS version of MySQL would need to call themselves something else , losing the name .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's what RMS said in the letter:MySQL uses the parallel licensing approach to generate revenue to continue the FLOSS development of the software.
If Oracle acquired MySQL, it would then be the only entity able to release the code other than under the GPL.
Oracle would not be obligated to diligently sell or reasonably price the MySQL commercial licenses.
More importantly, Oracle is under no obligation to use the revenues from these licenses to advance MySQL.
In making decisions in these matters, Oracle is facing an obvious conflict of interest - the continued development of a powerful, feature rich free alternative to its core product.As only the original rights holder can sell commercial licenses, no new forked version of the code will have the ability to practice the parallel licensing approach, and will not easily generate the resources to support continued development of the MySQL platform.The acquisition of MySQL by Oracle will be a major setback to the development of a FLOSS database platform, potentially alienating and dispersing MySQL's core community of developers.
It could take several years before another database platform could rival the progress and opportunities now available to MySQL, because it will take time before any of them attract and cultivate a large enough team of developers and achieve a similar customer base.
So basically, RMS is concerned that Oracle really would fork MySQL, and end the dual-licensing for any future versions they release.
This effectively would make the Oracle fork of MySQL into proprietary or "closed source" software.And Oracle would likely keep the "MySQL" name, because Oracle really wants that brand recognition in the low-end database market, competing with MS-SQL.
So I'd guess a forked F/OSS version of MySQL would need to call themselves something else, losing the name.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29809977</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810527</id>
	<title>wow</title>
	<author>nomadic</author>
	<datestamp>1256061720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Someone paid $1 BILLION for a software company that made maybe a few million in revenue a year, and who already distribute most of the source code for their main product?  Why?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone paid $ 1 BILLION for a software company that made maybe a few million in revenue a year , and who already distribute most of the source code for their main product ?
Why ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone paid $1 BILLION for a software company that made maybe a few million in revenue a year, and who already distribute most of the source code for their main product?
Why?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1616220_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29809945
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1616220_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810447
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810159
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1616220_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29888577
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29811187
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29809973
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1616220_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29811133
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810481
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29809977
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1616220_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810225
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29809977
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1616220_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29811173
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810055
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1616220_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810547
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29809977
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1616220_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29811331
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810977
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810527
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1616220_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29816361
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810159
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1616220_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29811617
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810481
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29809977
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1616220_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29817393
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29811079
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1616220_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29826301
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29811351
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810433
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1616220_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810983
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810305
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29809977
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1616220_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29819819
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810433
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1616220_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29812471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810159
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1616220_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810243
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29809977
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1616220_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29814415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810675
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810433
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1616220_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29809977
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1616220_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29813199
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29811511
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1616220_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810317
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29809977
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1616220_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29826415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810527
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1616220_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29819483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810433
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1616220_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29814969
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29811079
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1616220_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29811033
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29809977
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1616220_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29812089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810573
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1616220_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29815019
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29809977
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1616220_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29812711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810283
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29809977
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1616220_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29812823
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810645
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1616220_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29811775
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810245
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1616220_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29819755
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29812987
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29811187
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29809973
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1616220_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29811163
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810659
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810159
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1616220_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29812387
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810865
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1616220_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29809977
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1616220_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810211
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29809945
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1616220_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29829267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29811079
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1616220_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29813627
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810481
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29809977
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1616220_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29819023
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810481
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29809977
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1616220_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29813625
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810527
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1616220_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29811203
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29809977
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1616220_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29811243
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810527
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1616220_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29813009
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810207
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29809977
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1616220_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29825443
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810229
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1616220_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29811099
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810159
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1616220_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810461
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29809945
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1616220_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29814191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29811187
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29809973
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1616220_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29811603
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810481
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29809977
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1616220_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810701
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810159
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1616220_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29825673
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810207
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29809977
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1616220_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29813239
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29811079
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1616220_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29813931
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29809973
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1616220_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29823455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810645
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1616220_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29884223
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810645
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1616220_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29811329
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810207
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29809977
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1616220_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29812773
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810659
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810159
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_1616220.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29811511
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29813199
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_1616220.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810527
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810977
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29811331
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29811243
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29826415
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29813625
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_1616220.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29809977
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29815019
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810225
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810243
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810283
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29812711
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810317
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810305
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810983
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29811203
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810547
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29811033
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810315
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810267
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810207
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29825673
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29813009
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29811329
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810481
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29811603
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29811133
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29813627
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29811617
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29819023
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_1616220.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810367
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_1616220.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810433
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29819483
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810675
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29814415
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29819819
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29811351
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29826301
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_1616220.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810865
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29812387
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_1616220.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29811079
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29814969
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29829267
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29817393
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29813239
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_1616220.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29812515
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_1616220.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29811261
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_1616220.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810645
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29884223
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29823455
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29812823
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_1616220.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810175
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_1616220.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29809973
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29811187
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29888577
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29812987
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29819755
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29814191
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29813931
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_1616220.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810229
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29825443
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_1616220.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29809967
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_1616220.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810199
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_1616220.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29809945
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810211
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810461
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810523
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_1616220.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29811289
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_1616220.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29811421
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_1616220.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29811379
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_1616220.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810393
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_1616220.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810245
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29811775
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_1616220.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810573
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29812089
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_1616220.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810055
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29811173
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_1616220.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810159
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29811099
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810659
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29812773
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29811163
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29812471
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810447
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29816361
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1616220.29810701
</commentlist>
</conversation>
