<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_22_1939254</id>
	<title>Brian Aker Responds To RMS On Dual Licensing</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1256240580000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="mailto:brian@NOsPAm.tangent.org" rel="nofollow">krow</a> (Brian Aker, long-time MySQL developer) writes <i>"<a href="http://keionline.org/ec-mysql">Richard Stallman's comments on the Oracle Acquisition of Sun</a> left me scratching my head over his continued support of closed-source licensing around open source software. Having spent more than a decade in the MySQL community, I feel that his understanding of the dual-license model is limited, and is at odds with his advocacy of free software.  For this reason, I believe his recent statements concerning it <a href="http://krow.livejournal.com/673195.html">need to be addressed</a>. By pushing for the right to turn GPL-licensed software into the heart of a proprietary business model, he is squandering an opportunity for advocacy of open source within the European Union."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>krow ( Brian Aker , long-time MySQL developer ) writes " Richard Stallman 's comments on the Oracle Acquisition of Sun left me scratching my head over his continued support of closed-source licensing around open source software .
Having spent more than a decade in the MySQL community , I feel that his understanding of the dual-license model is limited , and is at odds with his advocacy of free software .
For this reason , I believe his recent statements concerning it need to be addressed .
By pushing for the right to turn GPL-licensed software into the heart of a proprietary business model , he is squandering an opportunity for advocacy of open source within the European Union .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>krow (Brian Aker, long-time MySQL developer) writes "Richard Stallman's comments on the Oracle Acquisition of Sun left me scratching my head over his continued support of closed-source licensing around open source software.
Having spent more than a decade in the MySQL community, I feel that his understanding of the dual-license model is limited, and is at odds with his advocacy of free software.
For this reason, I believe his recent statements concerning it need to be addressed.
By pushing for the right to turn GPL-licensed software into the heart of a proprietary business model, he is squandering an opportunity for advocacy of open source within the European Union.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839703</id>
	<title>Re:So what</title>
	<author>Knuckles</author>
	<datestamp>1256203620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Did you have to agree to a license before you could use any of these items?  NO. </p></div><p>Are you serious? Maybe you should read the GPL before passing public judgment on it.</p><p><i>Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program).</i></p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; -- <a href="http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html#TOC3" title="gnu.org">GPLv2</a> [gnu.org]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did you have to agree to a license before you could use any of these items ?
NO. Are you serious ?
Maybe you should read the GPL before passing public judgment on it.Activities other than copying , distribution and modification are not covered by this License ; they are outside its scope .
The act of running the Program is not restricted , and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program ( independent of having been made by running the Program ) .
      -- GPLv2 [ gnu.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did you have to agree to a license before you could use any of these items?
NO. Are you serious?
Maybe you should read the GPL before passing public judgment on it.Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope.
The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program).
      -- GPLv2 [gnu.org]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29845985</id>
	<title>What's with this "extremely narrow" meme?</title>
	<author>Mateo\_LeFou</author>
	<datestamp>1256312280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Every time rms is brought up, someone hauls out this phrase "extremely narrow definition of free"</p><p>Really? Narrow? *Extremely narrow?!?? How many licenses are considered free?<br><a href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html" title="gnu.org">http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html</a> [gnu.org]</p><p>Software is free if it respects the four freedoms. They're clear and, in my opinion, not the slightest bit narrow.</p><p>Nine times out of ten this comes from someone who prefers "permissive" licenses to copyleft ones. But these *are considered free by the FSF.</p><p>Are you just tweaked that rms and others *prefer that copyleft licenses be used? That's nothing to do with how "narrow" their definition of free is. It's a pragmatic argument about which intelligent people can disagree.</p><p>But this "extremely narrow" business serves no purpose vis-a-vis intelligent disagreement. It's a rhetorical whack meant to associate principled advocates of free software with limitations,restrictions &amp; unfreedom.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Every time rms is brought up , someone hauls out this phrase " extremely narrow definition of free " Really ?
Narrow ? * Extremely narrow ? ! ? ?
How many licenses are considered free ? http : //www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html [ gnu.org ] Software is free if it respects the four freedoms .
They 're clear and , in my opinion , not the slightest bit narrow.Nine times out of ten this comes from someone who prefers " permissive " licenses to copyleft ones .
But these * are considered free by the FSF.Are you just tweaked that rms and others * prefer that copyleft licenses be used ?
That 's nothing to do with how " narrow " their definition of free is .
It 's a pragmatic argument about which intelligent people can disagree.But this " extremely narrow " business serves no purpose vis-a-vis intelligent disagreement .
It 's a rhetorical whack meant to associate principled advocates of free software with limitations,restrictions &amp; unfreedom .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every time rms is brought up, someone hauls out this phrase "extremely narrow definition of free"Really?
Narrow? *Extremely narrow?!??
How many licenses are considered free?http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html [gnu.org]Software is free if it respects the four freedoms.
They're clear and, in my opinion, not the slightest bit narrow.Nine times out of ten this comes from someone who prefers "permissive" licenses to copyleft ones.
But these *are considered free by the FSF.Are you just tweaked that rms and others *prefer that copyleft licenses be used?
That's nothing to do with how "narrow" their definition of free is.
It's a pragmatic argument about which intelligent people can disagree.But this "extremely narrow" business serves no purpose vis-a-vis intelligent disagreement.
It's a rhetorical whack meant to associate principled advocates of free software with limitations,restrictions &amp; unfreedom.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839659</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29840155</id>
	<title>Re:So what</title>
	<author>Toonol</author>
	<datestamp>1256206020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You don't agree to the GPL license to use or modify a GPL product.  It is only concerned with redistribution, which would be blatantly illegal without the GPL.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't agree to the GPL license to use or modify a GPL product .
It is only concerned with redistribution , which would be blatantly illegal without the GPL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't agree to the GPL license to use or modify a GPL product.
It is only concerned with redistribution, which would be blatantly illegal without the GPL.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29840069</id>
	<title>Re:groklaw's take on this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256205540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Groklaw has an <a href="http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20091021164738392" title="groklaw.net" rel="nofollow">interesting take</a> [groklaw.net] on this, full of conspiracy theories.</p><p>See, for example, <a href="http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&amp;sid=20091021164738392&amp;title=Whois\%3A++Monty+Widenius&amp;type=article&amp;order=&amp;hideanonymous=0&amp;pid=795299#c795327" title="groklaw.net" rel="nofollow">this comment</a> [groklaw.net], where PJ is talking about Monty, and says:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I have come to suspect he's a double agent.<br>And I believe the beneficiary will be Microsoft.</p></div><p>Wow</p></div><p>Groklaw is turning into the Troofer site for the realm of technology law.</p><p>PJ did great work on shining the light of day on SCO, but damn, Groklaw is turning into the professional athlete that played about a decade too long in a futile search for former glory.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Groklaw has an interesting take [ groklaw.net ] on this , full of conspiracy theories.See , for example , this comment [ groklaw.net ] , where PJ is talking about Monty , and says : I have come to suspect he 's a double agent.And I believe the beneficiary will be Microsoft.WowGroklaw is turning into the Troofer site for the realm of technology law.PJ did great work on shining the light of day on SCO , but damn , Groklaw is turning into the professional athlete that played about a decade too long in a futile search for former glory .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Groklaw has an interesting take [groklaw.net] on this, full of conspiracy theories.See, for example, this comment [groklaw.net], where PJ is talking about Monty, and says:I have come to suspect he's a double agent.And I believe the beneficiary will be Microsoft.WowGroklaw is turning into the Troofer site for the realm of technology law.PJ did great work on shining the light of day on SCO, but damn, Groklaw is turning into the professional athlete that played about a decade too long in a futile search for former glory.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839573</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29840045</id>
	<title>Monty's laboring under a misconclusion</title>
	<author>Bruce Perens</author>
	<datestamp>1256205420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I met with Monty a few months ago and could not convince him that he could carry out his business although the MySQL server was under the GPL. He appears to be locked into some GPL FUD that MySQL got from a lawyer in service of selling the commercial license even though - IMO - you've never needed one to run the server, just a few of the client libraries.</p><p>
So, Monty is now attempting to rebel against the GPL unnecessarily because of this false conclusion.</p><p>Or perhaps his real strategy is to kill the Sun/Oracle MySQL business, leaving him and his company in an advantageous position.</p><p>
What makes this doubly strange is that <b>Monty has been paid</b>. Something around USD $100 Million for about 10 years work - a pretty good rate, IMO. Whatever he put into MySQL, he got compensated for. And thus I don't see that he has much moral standing on this issue.</p><p> <i>Bruce</i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I met with Monty a few months ago and could not convince him that he could carry out his business although the MySQL server was under the GPL .
He appears to be locked into some GPL FUD that MySQL got from a lawyer in service of selling the commercial license even though - IMO - you 've never needed one to run the server , just a few of the client libraries .
So , Monty is now attempting to rebel against the GPL unnecessarily because of this false conclusion.Or perhaps his real strategy is to kill the Sun/Oracle MySQL business , leaving him and his company in an advantageous position .
What makes this doubly strange is that Monty has been paid .
Something around USD $ 100 Million for about 10 years work - a pretty good rate , IMO .
Whatever he put into MySQL , he got compensated for .
And thus I do n't see that he has much moral standing on this issue .
Bruce</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I met with Monty a few months ago and could not convince him that he could carry out his business although the MySQL server was under the GPL.
He appears to be locked into some GPL FUD that MySQL got from a lawyer in service of selling the commercial license even though - IMO - you've never needed one to run the server, just a few of the client libraries.
So, Monty is now attempting to rebel against the GPL unnecessarily because of this false conclusion.Or perhaps his real strategy is to kill the Sun/Oracle MySQL business, leaving him and his company in an advantageous position.
What makes this doubly strange is that Monty has been paid.
Something around USD $100 Million for about 10 years work - a pretty good rate, IMO.
Whatever he put into MySQL, he got compensated for.
And thus I don't see that he has much moral standing on this issue.
Bruce</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839573</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29841109</id>
	<title>Re:No way to prevent dual licensing?</title>
	<author>Wesley Felter</author>
	<datestamp>1256211840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If different parts of the code are copyrighted by different contributors (like the Linux kernel) then any particular contributor cannot dual-license.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If different parts of the code are copyrighted by different contributors ( like the Linux kernel ) then any particular contributor can not dual-license .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If different parts of the code are copyrighted by different contributors (like the Linux kernel) then any particular contributor cannot dual-license.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29840281</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839955</id>
	<title>Re:So what</title>
	<author>vertinox</author>
	<datestamp>1256204940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>To call Stallman a kook and crackpot would be overly flattering. He isn't concerned with "freedom", he is only interested in pushing a personal agenda.</i></p><p>Huh? By that definition the same thing could be said about Thomas Jefferson, Karl Marx, or any person involved in politics that was considered "radical" where they really don't even believe in their own ideas.</p><p>I mean seriously... Say what you will about RMS ideas and disagree with them if you don't like them, but to say he only does the FSF and GPL for the ladies and money is retarded at best.</p><p>I mean if he's got an agenda what is is for? To get attention from forum nerds? The lulz?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To call Stallman a kook and crackpot would be overly flattering .
He is n't concerned with " freedom " , he is only interested in pushing a personal agenda.Huh ?
By that definition the same thing could be said about Thomas Jefferson , Karl Marx , or any person involved in politics that was considered " radical " where they really do n't even believe in their own ideas.I mean seriously... Say what you will about RMS ideas and disagree with them if you do n't like them , but to say he only does the FSF and GPL for the ladies and money is retarded at best.I mean if he 's got an agenda what is is for ?
To get attention from forum nerds ?
The lulz ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To call Stallman a kook and crackpot would be overly flattering.
He isn't concerned with "freedom", he is only interested in pushing a personal agenda.Huh?
By that definition the same thing could be said about Thomas Jefferson, Karl Marx, or any person involved in politics that was considered "radical" where they really don't even believe in their own ideas.I mean seriously... Say what you will about RMS ideas and disagree with them if you don't like them, but to say he only does the FSF and GPL for the ladies and money is retarded at best.I mean if he's got an agenda what is is for?
To get attention from forum nerds?
The lulz?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839655</id>
	<title>Re:So what</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256203380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>To call Stallman a kook and crackpot would be overly flattering.  He isn't concerned with "freedom", he is only interested in pushing a personal agenda.  That's what the GPL is really all about.  If you truly believe in software freedom then you absolutely reject the entire notion of software licensing.</p><p>Have you ever bought a book?  Furniture? Clothing? A toaster, microwave or television?  Did you have to agree to a license before you could use any of these items?  NO.  If you want software freedom, then there is only one license -- no license at all.  Here's the software, you are free do do what you want.</p><p>The makers of proprietary software force you to agree to a massive, complicated license before you can use their products because they want to control and restrict what you can do.  Let's not pretend that GPL software is any different.</p></div><p>Ah yes, the <a href="http://sam.zoy.org/wtfpl/" title="zoy.org" rel="nofollow">WTFPL</a> [zoy.org].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>To call Stallman a kook and crackpot would be overly flattering .
He is n't concerned with " freedom " , he is only interested in pushing a personal agenda .
That 's what the GPL is really all about .
If you truly believe in software freedom then you absolutely reject the entire notion of software licensing.Have you ever bought a book ?
Furniture ? Clothing ?
A toaster , microwave or television ?
Did you have to agree to a license before you could use any of these items ?
NO. If you want software freedom , then there is only one license -- no license at all .
Here 's the software , you are free do do what you want.The makers of proprietary software force you to agree to a massive , complicated license before you can use their products because they want to control and restrict what you can do .
Let 's not pretend that GPL software is any different.Ah yes , the WTFPL [ zoy.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To call Stallman a kook and crackpot would be overly flattering.
He isn't concerned with "freedom", he is only interested in pushing a personal agenda.
That's what the GPL is really all about.
If you truly believe in software freedom then you absolutely reject the entire notion of software licensing.Have you ever bought a book?
Furniture? Clothing?
A toaster, microwave or television?
Did you have to agree to a license before you could use any of these items?
NO.  If you want software freedom, then there is only one license -- no license at all.
Here's the software, you are free do do what you want.The makers of proprietary software force you to agree to a massive, complicated license before you can use their products because they want to control and restrict what you can do.
Let's not pretend that GPL software is any different.Ah yes, the WTFPL [zoy.org].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29841941</id>
	<title>Re:groklaw's take on this</title>
	<author>davecb</author>
	<datestamp>1256219760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Groklaw also broke the story that MS is either one of or <b>the</b> complainant, that Monty is part of their (arguably bogus) open-source initiative, and that some of the legal arguing is explicitly anti-GPL.

</p><p>As a business, MS has no real reason to complain that Oracle might hurt MySQL. They should be hoping that MySQL is hurt, to the advantage of the MS sql server.

</p><p>I read it as an effort to distract the EC and get an easy "out" of some of the penalties that MS faces.  Plus get back at Scott for all the unkind things he said about Microsoft (;-))

</p><p>--dave</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Groklaw also broke the story that MS is either one of or the complainant , that Monty is part of their ( arguably bogus ) open-source initiative , and that some of the legal arguing is explicitly anti-GPL .
As a business , MS has no real reason to complain that Oracle might hurt MySQL .
They should be hoping that MySQL is hurt , to the advantage of the MS sql server .
I read it as an effort to distract the EC and get an easy " out " of some of the penalties that MS faces .
Plus get back at Scott for all the unkind things he said about Microsoft ( ; - ) ) --dave</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Groklaw also broke the story that MS is either one of or the complainant, that Monty is part of their (arguably bogus) open-source initiative, and that some of the legal arguing is explicitly anti-GPL.
As a business, MS has no real reason to complain that Oracle might hurt MySQL.
They should be hoping that MySQL is hurt, to the advantage of the MS sql server.
I read it as an effort to distract the EC and get an easy "out" of some of the penalties that MS faces.
Plus get back at Scott for all the unkind things he said about Microsoft (;-))

--dave</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839573</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29844053</id>
	<title>Re:Forgive me if I'm wrong but</title>
	<author>cheesybagel</author>
	<datestamp>1256297280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you prefer the GPLv2 to v3, you are perfectly fine with being fined or sued for infringing patents like mp3 and dvd player software. Nice huh?</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you prefer the GPLv2 to v3 , you are perfectly fine with being fined or sued for infringing patents like mp3 and dvd player software .
Nice huh ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you prefer the GPLv2 to v3, you are perfectly fine with being fined or sued for infringing patents like mp3 and dvd player software.
Nice huh?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839659</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839495</id>
	<title>Re:That's a new one</title>
	<author>nullchar</author>
	<datestamp>1256202540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, apparently as long as [some of?] the source remains GPL, RMS seems okay with dual licensing.</p><p>Stallman's quote:</p><blockquote><div><p>This approach was able to provide (1) an attractive platform for developers looking to use FLOSS, and secured MySQL enormous mind share, particularly in supporting content rich web pages and other Internet applications, and (2) the ability for paying client&#232;le to combine and distribute MySQL in customizations that they do not want to make available to the public as free/libre software under the GPL. With excellent management and considerable trust within the user community, MySQL became the gold standard for web based FLOSS database applications.</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , apparently as long as [ some of ?
] the source remains GPL , RMS seems okay with dual licensing.Stallman 's quote : This approach was able to provide ( 1 ) an attractive platform for developers looking to use FLOSS , and secured MySQL enormous mind share , particularly in supporting content rich web pages and other Internet applications , and ( 2 ) the ability for paying client   le to combine and distribute MySQL in customizations that they do not want to make available to the public as free/libre software under the GPL .
With excellent management and considerable trust within the user community , MySQL became the gold standard for web based FLOSS database applications .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, apparently as long as [some of?
] the source remains GPL, RMS seems okay with dual licensing.Stallman's quote:This approach was able to provide (1) an attractive platform for developers looking to use FLOSS, and secured MySQL enormous mind share, particularly in supporting content rich web pages and other Internet applications, and (2) the ability for paying clientèle to combine and distribute MySQL in customizations that they do not want to make available to the public as free/libre software under the GPL.
With excellent management and considerable trust within the user community, MySQL became the gold standard for web based FLOSS database applications.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839255</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29842013</id>
	<title>Divide and conquer</title>
	<author>petrus4</author>
	<datestamp>1256220840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>RMS could not care less about open source. He only cares about free software. There's a difference and he will go to great pains to point out the difference if you engage him using the term "open source." If you are going to respond to him, the least you can do is use the terminology correctly. Otherwise he'll interpret what you say differently than what you probably meant.</p></div><p>That's right.  Keep bringing this up.  Keep treating it as important.  The corporations that you're so paranoid about, love it when you do...because it means that while you're busy arguing about this, you're not providing them with any consistent form of opposition instead.</p><p>But then again, what am I saying?  If you were one of the people who were actually helping Linux get somewhere, you wouldn't be on Slashdot.</p><p>Oops, I forgot to use the term, "GNU/Linux," as well.  You'd better remind me not to do that next time, as well.  After all, we know how critically important it is.</p><p><i>"Woe to you teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices -- mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law -- justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel."</i></p><p>-- Matthew 23:23,24</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>RMS could not care less about open source .
He only cares about free software .
There 's a difference and he will go to great pains to point out the difference if you engage him using the term " open source .
" If you are going to respond to him , the least you can do is use the terminology correctly .
Otherwise he 'll interpret what you say differently than what you probably meant.That 's right .
Keep bringing this up .
Keep treating it as important .
The corporations that you 're so paranoid about , love it when you do...because it means that while you 're busy arguing about this , you 're not providing them with any consistent form of opposition instead.But then again , what am I saying ?
If you were one of the people who were actually helping Linux get somewhere , you would n't be on Slashdot.Oops , I forgot to use the term , " GNU/Linux , " as well .
You 'd better remind me not to do that next time , as well .
After all , we know how critically important it is .
" Woe to you teachers of the law and Pharisees , you hypocrites !
You give a tenth of your spices -- mint , dill and cummin .
But you have neglected the more important matters of the law -- justice , mercy and faithfulness .
You should have practiced the latter , without neglecting the former .
You blind guides !
You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel .
" -- Matthew 23 : 23,24</tokentext>
<sentencetext>RMS could not care less about open source.
He only cares about free software.
There's a difference and he will go to great pains to point out the difference if you engage him using the term "open source.
" If you are going to respond to him, the least you can do is use the terminology correctly.
Otherwise he'll interpret what you say differently than what you probably meant.That's right.
Keep bringing this up.
Keep treating it as important.
The corporations that you're so paranoid about, love it when you do...because it means that while you're busy arguing about this, you're not providing them with any consistent form of opposition instead.But then again, what am I saying?
If you were one of the people who were actually helping Linux get somewhere, you wouldn't be on Slashdot.Oops, I forgot to use the term, "GNU/Linux," as well.
You'd better remind me not to do that next time, as well.
After all, we know how critically important it is.
"Woe to you teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites!
You give a tenth of your spices -- mint, dill and cummin.
But you have neglected the more important matters of the law -- justice, mercy and faithfulness.
You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former.
You blind guides!
You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.
"-- Matthew 23:23,24
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839635</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839629</id>
	<title>Re:Forgive me if I'm wrong but</title>
	<author>mrvan</author>
	<datestamp>1256203140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But any FOSS software for which IP ownership is not concentrated (ie all developers kept their own copyright) is impossible to relicense, right? So MySQL is the exception because one party has IP rights, and the worst that can happen is that it becomes a normal FOSS project.</p><p>The real argument is that MySQL is developer with money acquired through the dual licensing, so that could go away. But admitting that is basically admitting that FOSS does not have a valid business model (in this case), so that's not opportune to say...</p><p>Isn't the IP of the kernel spread over all developers?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But any FOSS software for which IP ownership is not concentrated ( ie all developers kept their own copyright ) is impossible to relicense , right ?
So MySQL is the exception because one party has IP rights , and the worst that can happen is that it becomes a normal FOSS project.The real argument is that MySQL is developer with money acquired through the dual licensing , so that could go away .
But admitting that is basically admitting that FOSS does not have a valid business model ( in this case ) , so that 's not opportune to say...Is n't the IP of the kernel spread over all developers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But any FOSS software for which IP ownership is not concentrated (ie all developers kept their own copyright) is impossible to relicense, right?
So MySQL is the exception because one party has IP rights, and the worst that can happen is that it becomes a normal FOSS project.The real argument is that MySQL is developer with money acquired through the dual licensing, so that could go away.
But admitting that is basically admitting that FOSS does not have a valid business model (in this case), so that's not opportune to say...Isn't the IP of the kernel spread over all developers?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839431</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29840363</id>
	<title>m2od down</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256207160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>denad. It is a dead</htmltext>
<tokenext>denad .
It is a dead</tokentext>
<sentencetext>denad.
It is a dead</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29840091</id>
	<title>Re:RMS doesn't care about open source</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1256205600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Correction, RMS hates what he thinks of as open source almost as much as he hates proprietary software.</p><p>To me, open source software (OSS) seems like a clear superset of "free" software (FS).  The former can be GPLed, or BSDed, or public domain, or whatever.  The latter can only be licensed under the GPL or other RMS-approved-with-extra-freedom-license (TM).</p><p>To RMS there isn't a whole lot of difference between OSS and proprietary.  Neither one is "free."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Correction , RMS hates what he thinks of as open source almost as much as he hates proprietary software.To me , open source software ( OSS ) seems like a clear superset of " free " software ( FS ) .
The former can be GPLed , or BSDed , or public domain , or whatever .
The latter can only be licensed under the GPL or other RMS-approved-with-extra-freedom-license ( TM ) .To RMS there is n't a whole lot of difference between OSS and proprietary .
Neither one is " free .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Correction, RMS hates what he thinks of as open source almost as much as he hates proprietary software.To me, open source software (OSS) seems like a clear superset of "free" software (FS).
The former can be GPLed, or BSDed, or public domain, or whatever.
The latter can only be licensed under the GPL or other RMS-approved-with-extra-freedom-license (TM).To RMS there isn't a whole lot of difference between OSS and proprietary.
Neither one is "free.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839635</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839573</id>
	<title>groklaw's take on this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256202900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Groklaw has an <a href="http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20091021164738392" title="groklaw.net">interesting take</a> [groklaw.net] on this, full of conspiracy theories.</p><p>See, for example, <a href="http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&amp;sid=20091021164738392&amp;title=Whois\%3A++Monty+Widenius&amp;type=article&amp;order=&amp;hideanonymous=0&amp;pid=795299#c795327" title="groklaw.net">this comment</a> [groklaw.net], where PJ is talking about Monty, and says:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I have come to suspect he's a double agent.
And I believe the beneficiary will be Microsoft.</p></div><p>Wow</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Groklaw has an interesting take [ groklaw.net ] on this , full of conspiracy theories.See , for example , this comment [ groklaw.net ] , where PJ is talking about Monty , and says : I have come to suspect he 's a double agent .
And I believe the beneficiary will be Microsoft.Wow</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Groklaw has an interesting take [groklaw.net] on this, full of conspiracy theories.See, for example, this comment [groklaw.net], where PJ is talking about Monty, and says:I have come to suspect he's a double agent.
And I believe the beneficiary will be Microsoft.Wow
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839663</id>
	<title>Re:So what</title>
	<author>Microlith</author>
	<datestamp>1256203380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your trollish demeanor aside, the GPL is nothing like a standard EULA.</p><p>In fact, using GPL software is much like reading a book. The issues of copyright never come into play until you get it in your head that you wish to redistribute the work in question. Copyright says "no you can't, go talk to the copyright holder" while the GPL says "yes, under these terms. If you don't like them, Copyright says no you can't, go talk to the copyright holder."</p><p>Whereas proprietary software requires you read and accept a license before using it. Completely unlike a book.</p><p>Hopefully you will understand Stallman and the GPL better now, or I will have to apologize for feeding a troll.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your trollish demeanor aside , the GPL is nothing like a standard EULA.In fact , using GPL software is much like reading a book .
The issues of copyright never come into play until you get it in your head that you wish to redistribute the work in question .
Copyright says " no you ca n't , go talk to the copyright holder " while the GPL says " yes , under these terms .
If you do n't like them , Copyright says no you ca n't , go talk to the copyright holder .
" Whereas proprietary software requires you read and accept a license before using it .
Completely unlike a book.Hopefully you will understand Stallman and the GPL better now , or I will have to apologize for feeding a troll .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your trollish demeanor aside, the GPL is nothing like a standard EULA.In fact, using GPL software is much like reading a book.
The issues of copyright never come into play until you get it in your head that you wish to redistribute the work in question.
Copyright says "no you can't, go talk to the copyright holder" while the GPL says "yes, under these terms.
If you don't like them, Copyright says no you can't, go talk to the copyright holder.
"Whereas proprietary software requires you read and accept a license before using it.
Completely unlike a book.Hopefully you will understand Stallman and the GPL better now, or I will have to apologize for feeding a troll.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839685</id>
	<title>Re:So what</title>
	<author>benjamindees</author>
	<datestamp>1256203560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are conflating a "usage" license with a "distribution" license.  I agree that the former is completely inane.  But the latter is a necessary extension of the concept of copyright, and the basis of the GPLv2.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are conflating a " usage " license with a " distribution " license .
I agree that the former is completely inane .
But the latter is a necessary extension of the concept of copyright , and the basis of the GPLv2 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are conflating a "usage" license with a "distribution" license.
I agree that the former is completely inane.
But the latter is a necessary extension of the concept of copyright, and the basis of the GPLv2.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29840549</id>
	<title>Bruce Perens on crack?</title>
	<author>gr8\_phk</author>
	<datestamp>1256208180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The book you bought had a license, you simply did not have to agree to it. You're bound to it anyway.</p></div></blockquote><p>
WTF? You're bound by copyright law when you buy a book. Nothing more, nothing less. What is this license you speak of? Where do I find it? What makes it binding? How do I violate it?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The book you bought had a license , you simply did not have to agree to it .
You 're bound to it anyway .
WTF ? You 're bound by copyright law when you buy a book .
Nothing more , nothing less .
What is this license you speak of ?
Where do I find it ?
What makes it binding ?
How do I violate it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The book you bought had a license, you simply did not have to agree to it.
You're bound to it anyway.
WTF? You're bound by copyright law when you buy a book.
Nothing more, nothing less.
What is this license you speak of?
Where do I find it?
What makes it binding?
How do I violate it?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839767</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29851801</id>
	<title>Re:So what</title>
	<author>rwa2</author>
	<datestamp>1256293080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Books (and software code) fall under copyright.  So it's different than a license...   You can't as well copy parts out of a book and call it your own without giving due credit to the original author.  That kind of attribution is what the GPL helps sort out, though.</p><p>If you want a more truly free license, than go with one of the BSD'ish ones, that allow companies to take the code and roll it into their own proprietary black box.  I think philosophically the BSD license only seeks to maintain copyright so that same company can't greedily claim copyright for themselves and start suing everyone else for using the same BSD code they stole.  So you see why at least<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/some/ licensing terms are necessary.  As a contribution to society, BSD only wants to make sure that the code used by all these proprietary products has a solid foundation.  Just think... if it wasn't for the BSD network stack, Microsoft OS's would probably be completely pwned off the internets by now...</p><p>GPL does take licensing quite a bit farther to make their contribution to society... it is a vendetta against proprietary lock-in (and all those poor SOBs that had to attempt to deal with bugs in proprietary code with binary fiddling and patching... I figure RMS was particularly scarred by something like this in his younger years, and fully understand how he could have gone off the deep end as a result.)  Proprietary lock-in is a form of extortion, which I think most people will agree is quite unethical.</p><p>On the other hand, I think a lot of people and businesses have the misconception that the GPL automatically means "public domain"... nowhere in the GPL does it state that the GPL'd code that you modify and give to someone else also automatically has to be released back upstream too.  It can stay completely private between you and your customer.  It only stipulates that you have to give your customer the power to fix your code, and also that the customer can go on and give the code to the rest of the public (and all of their competition) too if they want, or they could also take it to another programmer (your competition) if they want.  That's the viral freedom-as-in-libre.  It's not necessarily free-as-in-gratuit / beer (though a lot of OSS code is in addition to being GPL'd).</p><p>We're transitioning from a manufacturing economy to almost a completely imaginary intellectual property economy.  The ones with all the money and power will be the ones with all the licenses - also imaginary.  Think about that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Books ( and software code ) fall under copyright .
So it 's different than a license... You ca n't as well copy parts out of a book and call it your own without giving due credit to the original author .
That kind of attribution is what the GPL helps sort out , though.If you want a more truly free license , than go with one of the BSD'ish ones , that allow companies to take the code and roll it into their own proprietary black box .
I think philosophically the BSD license only seeks to maintain copyright so that same company ca n't greedily claim copyright for themselves and start suing everyone else for using the same BSD code they stole .
So you see why at least /some/ licensing terms are necessary .
As a contribution to society , BSD only wants to make sure that the code used by all these proprietary products has a solid foundation .
Just think... if it was n't for the BSD network stack , Microsoft OS 's would probably be completely pwned off the internets by now...GPL does take licensing quite a bit farther to make their contribution to society... it is a vendetta against proprietary lock-in ( and all those poor SOBs that had to attempt to deal with bugs in proprietary code with binary fiddling and patching... I figure RMS was particularly scarred by something like this in his younger years , and fully understand how he could have gone off the deep end as a result .
) Proprietary lock-in is a form of extortion , which I think most people will agree is quite unethical.On the other hand , I think a lot of people and businesses have the misconception that the GPL automatically means " public domain " ... nowhere in the GPL does it state that the GPL 'd code that you modify and give to someone else also automatically has to be released back upstream too .
It can stay completely private between you and your customer .
It only stipulates that you have to give your customer the power to fix your code , and also that the customer can go on and give the code to the rest of the public ( and all of their competition ) too if they want , or they could also take it to another programmer ( your competition ) if they want .
That 's the viral freedom-as-in-libre .
It 's not necessarily free-as-in-gratuit / beer ( though a lot of OSS code is in addition to being GPL 'd ) .We 're transitioning from a manufacturing economy to almost a completely imaginary intellectual property economy .
The ones with all the money and power will be the ones with all the licenses - also imaginary .
Think about that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Books (and software code) fall under copyright.
So it's different than a license...   You can't as well copy parts out of a book and call it your own without giving due credit to the original author.
That kind of attribution is what the GPL helps sort out, though.If you want a more truly free license, than go with one of the BSD'ish ones, that allow companies to take the code and roll it into their own proprietary black box.
I think philosophically the BSD license only seeks to maintain copyright so that same company can't greedily claim copyright for themselves and start suing everyone else for using the same BSD code they stole.
So you see why at least /some/ licensing terms are necessary.
As a contribution to society, BSD only wants to make sure that the code used by all these proprietary products has a solid foundation.
Just think... if it wasn't for the BSD network stack, Microsoft OS's would probably be completely pwned off the internets by now...GPL does take licensing quite a bit farther to make their contribution to society... it is a vendetta against proprietary lock-in (and all those poor SOBs that had to attempt to deal with bugs in proprietary code with binary fiddling and patching... I figure RMS was particularly scarred by something like this in his younger years, and fully understand how he could have gone off the deep end as a result.
)  Proprietary lock-in is a form of extortion, which I think most people will agree is quite unethical.On the other hand, I think a lot of people and businesses have the misconception that the GPL automatically means "public domain"... nowhere in the GPL does it state that the GPL'd code that you modify and give to someone else also automatically has to be released back upstream too.
It can stay completely private between you and your customer.
It only stipulates that you have to give your customer the power to fix your code, and also that the customer can go on and give the code to the rest of the public (and all of their competition) too if they want, or they could also take it to another programmer (your competition) if they want.
That's the viral freedom-as-in-libre.
It's not necessarily free-as-in-gratuit / beer (though a lot of OSS code is in addition to being GPL'd).We're transitioning from a manufacturing economy to almost a completely imaginary intellectual property economy.
The ones with all the money and power will be the ones with all the licenses - also imaginary.
Think about that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839699</id>
	<title>Re:So what</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256203620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While I agree that RMS is an ideologue of the worst kind, you're completely off base here:</p><p><i>Have you ever bought a book? Furniture? Clothing? A toaster, microwave or television? Did you have to agree to a license before you could use any of these items?</i></p><p>No.  But guess what?  The GPL doesn't require that, either.</p><p>The GPL, like all copyright licenses, is a *redistribution* license.  ie, when you *redistribute* the software, at *that* point you are bound by the terms of the GPL, as it is under those terms that you are granted the right to redistribution.</p><p>What you're talking about is a EULA, and I don't believe it's clear that those are even enforceable (and whether or not they are almost certainly depends on the state/province/country you live in).  And certainly EULAs have absolutely no grounding in copyright law (which, as I say, is concerned with redistribution).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While I agree that RMS is an ideologue of the worst kind , you 're completely off base here : Have you ever bought a book ?
Furniture ? Clothing ?
A toaster , microwave or television ?
Did you have to agree to a license before you could use any of these items ? No .
But guess what ?
The GPL does n't require that , either.The GPL , like all copyright licenses , is a * redistribution * license .
ie , when you * redistribute * the software , at * that * point you are bound by the terms of the GPL , as it is under those terms that you are granted the right to redistribution.What you 're talking about is a EULA , and I do n't believe it 's clear that those are even enforceable ( and whether or not they are almost certainly depends on the state/province/country you live in ) .
And certainly EULAs have absolutely no grounding in copyright law ( which , as I say , is concerned with redistribution ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I agree that RMS is an ideologue of the worst kind, you're completely off base here:Have you ever bought a book?
Furniture? Clothing?
A toaster, microwave or television?
Did you have to agree to a license before you could use any of these items?No.
But guess what?
The GPL doesn't require that, either.The GPL, like all copyright licenses, is a *redistribution* license.
ie, when you *redistribute* the software, at *that* point you are bound by the terms of the GPL, as it is under those terms that you are granted the right to redistribution.What you're talking about is a EULA, and I don't believe it's clear that those are even enforceable (and whether or not they are almost certainly depends on the state/province/country you live in).
And certainly EULAs have absolutely no grounding in copyright law (which, as I say, is concerned with redistribution).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839767</id>
	<title>Things don't work the way you think</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256203980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Did you have to agree to a license before you could use any of these items? NO.</p></div></blockquote><p>Things don't work the way you think. The book you bought had a license, you simply <b>did not have to agree to it.</b> You're bound to it anyway.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did you have to agree to a license before you could use any of these items ?
NO.Things do n't work the way you think .
The book you bought had a license , you simply did not have to agree to it .
You 're bound to it anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did you have to agree to a license before you could use any of these items?
NO.Things don't work the way you think.
The book you bought had a license, you simply did not have to agree to it.
You're bound to it anyway.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29840731</id>
	<title>Re:Dual Licensing is a good business model</title>
	<author>krow</author>
	<datestamp>1256209140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hi Bruce!</p><p>Please note that I say nothing about the effectiveness of dual licensing as a business model. Pay-day loans exist as a business model, but I do not find that they are healthy for the communities that they exist in.</p><p>Richard is choosing to ignore the overall health of community interaction in order to favor a business model that is in direct conflict with "free software". This is what I find to be sad in his actions.</p><p>The fact that he is squandering his opportunity to further the cause of free/open source is shameful.</p><p>-Brian</p><p>Btw I originally replied to the wrong comment from you , hence this post. The iPhone is not the greatest interface to slashdot<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hi Bruce ! Please note that I say nothing about the effectiveness of dual licensing as a business model .
Pay-day loans exist as a business model , but I do not find that they are healthy for the communities that they exist in.Richard is choosing to ignore the overall health of community interaction in order to favor a business model that is in direct conflict with " free software " .
This is what I find to be sad in his actions.The fact that he is squandering his opportunity to further the cause of free/open source is shameful.-BrianBtw I originally replied to the wrong comment from you , hence this post .
The iPhone is not the greatest interface to slashdot : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hi Bruce!Please note that I say nothing about the effectiveness of dual licensing as a business model.
Pay-day loans exist as a business model, but I do not find that they are healthy for the communities that they exist in.Richard is choosing to ignore the overall health of community interaction in order to favor a business model that is in direct conflict with "free software".
This is what I find to be sad in his actions.The fact that he is squandering his opportunity to further the cause of free/open source is shameful.-BrianBtw I originally replied to the wrong comment from you , hence this post.
The iPhone is not the greatest interface to slashdot :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839733</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839783</id>
	<title>Re:So what</title>
	<author>gdshaw</author>
	<datestamp>1256204040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The makers of proprietary software force you to agree to a massive, complicated license before you can use their products because they want to control and restrict what you can do. Let's not pretend that GPL software is any different.</p></div></blockquote><p>Er, have you actually read the GPL?  From section 9 (GPLv3):</p><blockquote><div><p>"You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run a copy of the Program."</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The makers of proprietary software force you to agree to a massive , complicated license before you can use their products because they want to control and restrict what you can do .
Let 's not pretend that GPL software is any different.Er , have you actually read the GPL ?
From section 9 ( GPLv3 ) : " You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run a copy of the Program .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The makers of proprietary software force you to agree to a massive, complicated license before you can use their products because they want to control and restrict what you can do.
Let's not pretend that GPL software is any different.Er, have you actually read the GPL?
From section 9 (GPLv3):"You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run a copy of the Program.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29841185</id>
	<title>Re:That's a new one</title>
	<author>Jurily</author>
	<datestamp>1256212320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>(2) the ability for paying client&#232;le to combine and distribute MySQL in customizations that they do not want to make available to the public as free/libre software under the GPL.</p></div><p>Umm. Isn't this <i> <b>exactly</b> </i> the reason GPL was born in the first place?</p><p>If you want to modify open code, but not contribute back, you either don't use code under GPL or you don't distribute the modified version. Did they talk this through with all the people whose code was merged under the GPL? There is a reason why FSF could move to GPL3 and why the Linux kernel can't possibly do so.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>( 2 ) the ability for paying client   le to combine and distribute MySQL in customizations that they do not want to make available to the public as free/libre software under the GPL.Umm .
Is n't this exactly the reason GPL was born in the first place ? If you want to modify open code , but not contribute back , you either do n't use code under GPL or you do n't distribute the modified version .
Did they talk this through with all the people whose code was merged under the GPL ?
There is a reason why FSF could move to GPL3 and why the Linux kernel ca n't possibly do so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(2) the ability for paying clientèle to combine and distribute MySQL in customizations that they do not want to make available to the public as free/libre software under the GPL.Umm.
Isn't this  exactly  the reason GPL was born in the first place?If you want to modify open code, but not contribute back, you either don't use code under GPL or you don't distribute the modified version.
Did they talk this through with all the people whose code was merged under the GPL?
There is a reason why FSF could move to GPL3 and why the Linux kernel can't possibly do so.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839495</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29843837</id>
	<title>Re:Bruce Perens on crack?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256293620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Copyright law is the 'license' he speaks of. IANAL a lawyer, so the specific legal term might be otherwise. But his point is valid: When you buy a book, you are bound by copyright law. To answer your questions: You can find those laws where you find any of your country's laws. It is binding because the state makes it so, and will punish you if you violate it. You violate it if you create copies of the book not under copyright law (basically, any copies you create that are not under 'fair use').</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Copyright law is the 'license ' he speaks of .
IANAL a lawyer , so the specific legal term might be otherwise .
But his point is valid : When you buy a book , you are bound by copyright law .
To answer your questions : You can find those laws where you find any of your country 's laws .
It is binding because the state makes it so , and will punish you if you violate it .
You violate it if you create copies of the book not under copyright law ( basically , any copies you create that are not under 'fair use ' ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Copyright law is the 'license' he speaks of.
IANAL a lawyer, so the specific legal term might be otherwise.
But his point is valid: When you buy a book, you are bound by copyright law.
To answer your questions: You can find those laws where you find any of your country's laws.
It is binding because the state makes it so, and will punish you if you violate it.
You violate it if you create copies of the book not under copyright law (basically, any copies you create that are not under 'fair use').</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29840549</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839895</id>
	<title>Re:Forgive me if I'm wrong but</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1256204640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sun's MySQL page states ( <a href="http://dev.mysql.com/downloads/mysql/5.4.html" title="mysql.com" rel="nofollow">http://dev.mysql.com/downloads/mysql/5.4.html</a> [mysql.com] ) that it is licensed under GPL and refers you to the following URL:</p><p><a href="http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html" title="gnu.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html</a> [gnu.org]</p><p>Which clearly states it can be licensed using any newer version of GPL by anyone who wants to do so.</p><p>I'm sorry, you were claiming something about what RMS was stating?  I lost track after realizing you had no idea how it was licensed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sun 's MySQL page states ( http : //dev.mysql.com/downloads/mysql/5.4.html [ mysql.com ] ) that it is licensed under GPL and refers you to the following URL : http : //www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html [ gnu.org ] Which clearly states it can be licensed using any newer version of GPL by anyone who wants to do so.I 'm sorry , you were claiming something about what RMS was stating ?
I lost track after realizing you had no idea how it was licensed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sun's MySQL page states ( http://dev.mysql.com/downloads/mysql/5.4.html [mysql.com] ) that it is licensed under GPL and refers you to the following URL:http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html [gnu.org]Which clearly states it can be licensed using any newer version of GPL by anyone who wants to do so.I'm sorry, you were claiming something about what RMS was stating?
I lost track after realizing you had no idea how it was licensed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839431</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29853083</id>
	<title>Re:Monty's laboring under a misconclusion</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256303280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bruce,</p><p>1. Monty started working on MySQL in 1983. So by the time MySQL was sold to Sun he had been working on it for more than 20 years.</p><p>2. Three founders cashed out together $100 Million. Monty got exactly one third of it : $33 Million</p><p>3. You could ask Monty to get this info when you met him or through email: he was pretty open on this account.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bruce,1 .
Monty started working on MySQL in 1983 .
So by the time MySQL was sold to Sun he had been working on it for more than 20 years.2 .
Three founders cashed out together $ 100 Million .
Monty got exactly one third of it : $ 33 Million3 .
You could ask Monty to get this info when you met him or through email : he was pretty open on this account .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bruce,1.
Monty started working on MySQL in 1983.
So by the time MySQL was sold to Sun he had been working on it for more than 20 years.2.
Three founders cashed out together $100 Million.
Monty got exactly one third of it : $33 Million3.
You could ask Monty to get this info when you met him or through email: he was pretty open on this account.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29840045</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29840893</id>
	<title>Why should the EU have power to stop the merger?</title>
	<author>metrix007</author>
	<datestamp>1256210400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I get that since the companies want to do business in Europe, they have to follow the regulations and be  approved and such.</p><p>However, they are US companies. Not EU companies.</p><p>So what can the EU actually do? If the US OK's it, surely the resulting company can be barred from doing business in the EU or whatever..., but even that more than likely would not hold.</p><p>I understand the practicalities, but I just wonder what actual power the EU has to stop US companies from joining.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I get that since the companies want to do business in Europe , they have to follow the regulations and be approved and such.However , they are US companies .
Not EU companies.So what can the EU actually do ?
If the US OK 's it , surely the resulting company can be barred from doing business in the EU or whatever... , but even that more than likely would not hold.I understand the practicalities , but I just wonder what actual power the EU has to stop US companies from joining .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I get that since the companies want to do business in Europe, they have to follow the regulations and be  approved and such.However, they are US companies.
Not EU companies.So what can the EU actually do?
If the US OK's it, surely the resulting company can be barred from doing business in the EU or whatever..., but even that more than likely would not hold.I understand the practicalities, but I just wonder what actual power the EU has to stop US companies from joining.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839431</id>
	<title>Re:Forgive me if I'm wrong but</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256202120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, there is.  The problem RMS is pointing out, is if Oracle basically shutters MySQL after acquiring it, as the owners of the primary license they can prevent MySQL from ever having a GPLv3 release, or any further closed source releases to fund further development.  MySQL forks at that point will be locked into GPLv2 without the option of closed source releases to help fund further development.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , there is .
The problem RMS is pointing out , is if Oracle basically shutters MySQL after acquiring it , as the owners of the primary license they can prevent MySQL from ever having a GPLv3 release , or any further closed source releases to fund further development .
MySQL forks at that point will be locked into GPLv2 without the option of closed source releases to help fund further development .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, there is.
The problem RMS is pointing out, is if Oracle basically shutters MySQL after acquiring it, as the owners of the primary license they can prevent MySQL from ever having a GPLv3 release, or any further closed source releases to fund further development.
MySQL forks at that point will be locked into GPLv2 without the option of closed source releases to help fund further development.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839295</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839965</id>
	<title>Re:So what</title>
	<author>dedazo</author>
	<datestamp>1256205060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The GPL places restrictions on distribution of derivatives of the work. It does not restrict in any way shape or form what <i>users</i> can do with the software, or even derivative works, so long as those never leave their hard drives.</p><p>Further, FOSS licenses grant you ownership rights over the work.</p><p>Proprietary software licenses on the other hand (I assume you're talking about EULAs and such) place restrictions on usage and distribution, <i>and</i> they only grant you licensee (not ownership) rights, which can be revoked at any point for any reason by the company you're getting the software from.</p><p>I might not be a big fan of Stallman and his philosophies, but if you're going to make a point like this about him, at least get the basic legalese right.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The GPL places restrictions on distribution of derivatives of the work .
It does not restrict in any way shape or form what users can do with the software , or even derivative works , so long as those never leave their hard drives.Further , FOSS licenses grant you ownership rights over the work.Proprietary software licenses on the other hand ( I assume you 're talking about EULAs and such ) place restrictions on usage and distribution , and they only grant you licensee ( not ownership ) rights , which can be revoked at any point for any reason by the company you 're getting the software from.I might not be a big fan of Stallman and his philosophies , but if you 're going to make a point like this about him , at least get the basic legalese right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The GPL places restrictions on distribution of derivatives of the work.
It does not restrict in any way shape or form what users can do with the software, or even derivative works, so long as those never leave their hard drives.Further, FOSS licenses grant you ownership rights over the work.Proprietary software licenses on the other hand (I assume you're talking about EULAs and such) place restrictions on usage and distribution, and they only grant you licensee (not ownership) rights, which can be revoked at any point for any reason by the company you're getting the software from.I might not be a big fan of Stallman and his philosophies, but if you're going to make a point like this about him, at least get the basic legalese right.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29840425</id>
	<title>Re:So what</title>
	<author>RichardJenkins</author>
	<datestamp>1256207580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're confusing EULAs with distribution licenses. Consider:</p><p>EULA: Microsoft produces Office. Before I can use it I have to agree to certain conditions of use. Copyright law restricts me from re-distributing (or creating new works from) it without permission getting permission from MS.</p><p>GPL: Sun produces Java. They give it to me and I can use it without agreeing to any conditions limiting my use of the software*. Copyright law would restrict me from re-distributing (or creating new works from) it, but Sun has already given me permission to do this through the GPL.</p><p>Doesn't Stallman claim to want freedom for "recipients" of software to be able to use it and modify it, and not a free-for-all for developers and distributors? If those are his goals, then whether you agree with them or not presumably people who produce and distribute software under the GPL either agree with them, or don't understand the point of the license.</p><p>* I'll acknowledge that plenty of software presents a copy of the GPL and asks you to acknowledge it before installing the software. This doesn't change the fact that the GPL does not take any rights away from you, it only grants you certain rights (with regards to redistribution and modification) that you would not have otherwise. In fact the GPL itself says that "You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run a copy of the Program"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're confusing EULAs with distribution licenses .
Consider : EULA : Microsoft produces Office .
Before I can use it I have to agree to certain conditions of use .
Copyright law restricts me from re-distributing ( or creating new works from ) it without permission getting permission from MS.GPL : Sun produces Java .
They give it to me and I can use it without agreeing to any conditions limiting my use of the software * .
Copyright law would restrict me from re-distributing ( or creating new works from ) it , but Sun has already given me permission to do this through the GPL.Does n't Stallman claim to want freedom for " recipients " of software to be able to use it and modify it , and not a free-for-all for developers and distributors ?
If those are his goals , then whether you agree with them or not presumably people who produce and distribute software under the GPL either agree with them , or do n't understand the point of the license .
* I 'll acknowledge that plenty of software presents a copy of the GPL and asks you to acknowledge it before installing the software .
This does n't change the fact that the GPL does not take any rights away from you , it only grants you certain rights ( with regards to redistribution and modification ) that you would not have otherwise .
In fact the GPL itself says that " You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run a copy of the Program "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're confusing EULAs with distribution licenses.
Consider:EULA: Microsoft produces Office.
Before I can use it I have to agree to certain conditions of use.
Copyright law restricts me from re-distributing (or creating new works from) it without permission getting permission from MS.GPL: Sun produces Java.
They give it to me and I can use it without agreeing to any conditions limiting my use of the software*.
Copyright law would restrict me from re-distributing (or creating new works from) it, but Sun has already given me permission to do this through the GPL.Doesn't Stallman claim to want freedom for "recipients" of software to be able to use it and modify it, and not a free-for-all for developers and distributors?
If those are his goals, then whether you agree with them or not presumably people who produce and distribute software under the GPL either agree with them, or don't understand the point of the license.
* I'll acknowledge that plenty of software presents a copy of the GPL and asks you to acknowledge it before installing the software.
This doesn't change the fact that the GPL does not take any rights away from you, it only grants you certain rights (with regards to redistribution and modification) that you would not have otherwise.
In fact the GPL itself says that "You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run a copy of the Program"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839791</id>
	<title>Re:So what</title>
	<author>wastedlife</author>
	<datestamp>1256204160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Erm, the GPL is a distribution license. You are free to run, modify, print and use as toilet paper, or do whatever as long as you do not distribute. If you wish to distribute the code, you need to follow the license and include your changes with it. I think even the biggest FLOSS zealots understand this. Why can't you?</p><p>As for this:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Have you ever bought a book? Furniture? Clothing? A toaster, microwave or television? Did you have to agree to a license before you could use any of these items? NO.</p></div><p>You don't have to with GPL code either. If you were to copy the book, or make knock-off furniture or clothing and then sold or distributed, you could likely be sued for it. If you sell or distribute GPL code, you just have to follow the license.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Erm , the GPL is a distribution license .
You are free to run , modify , print and use as toilet paper , or do whatever as long as you do not distribute .
If you wish to distribute the code , you need to follow the license and include your changes with it .
I think even the biggest FLOSS zealots understand this .
Why ca n't you ? As for this : Have you ever bought a book ?
Furniture ? Clothing ?
A toaster , microwave or television ?
Did you have to agree to a license before you could use any of these items ?
NO.You do n't have to with GPL code either .
If you were to copy the book , or make knock-off furniture or clothing and then sold or distributed , you could likely be sued for it .
If you sell or distribute GPL code , you just have to follow the license .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Erm, the GPL is a distribution license.
You are free to run, modify, print and use as toilet paper, or do whatever as long as you do not distribute.
If you wish to distribute the code, you need to follow the license and include your changes with it.
I think even the biggest FLOSS zealots understand this.
Why can't you?As for this:Have you ever bought a book?
Furniture? Clothing?
A toaster, microwave or television?
Did you have to agree to a license before you could use any of these items?
NO.You don't have to with GPL code either.
If you were to copy the book, or make knock-off furniture or clothing and then sold or distributed, you could likely be sued for it.
If you sell or distribute GPL code, you just have to follow the license.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29841403</id>
	<title>open source?</title>
	<author>Jessta</author>
	<datestamp>1256213940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>By pushing for the right to turn GPL-licensed software into the heart of a proprietary business model, he is squandering an opportunity for advocacy of open source within the European Union.</p></div><p>umm...RMS doesn't advocate Open Source. RMS advocates Free Software</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>By pushing for the right to turn GPL-licensed software into the heart of a proprietary business model , he is squandering an opportunity for advocacy of open source within the European Union.umm...RMS does n't advocate Open Source .
RMS advocates Free Software</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By pushing for the right to turn GPL-licensed software into the heart of a proprietary business model, he is squandering an opportunity for advocacy of open source within the European Union.umm...RMS doesn't advocate Open Source.
RMS advocates Free Software
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29847249</id>
	<title>Re:Bruce Perens on crack?</title>
	<author>gpuk</author>
	<datestamp>1256319000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You ARE bound to a license if you wish to resell or distribute the book though. The GPL is exactly the same. From a previous poster:</p><p>From section 9 (GPLv3):</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; "You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run a copy of the Program."</p><p>From where I'm sitting, it works the same as a book...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You ARE bound to a license if you wish to resell or distribute the book though .
The GPL is exactly the same .
From a previous poster : From section 9 ( GPLv3 ) :         " You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run a copy of the Program .
" From where I 'm sitting , it works the same as a book.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You ARE bound to a license if you wish to resell or distribute the book though.
The GPL is exactly the same.
From a previous poster:From section 9 (GPLv3):
        "You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run a copy of the Program.
"From where I'm sitting, it works the same as a book...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29840549</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29841483</id>
	<title>Re:That's a new one</title>
	<author>vagabond\_gr</author>
	<datestamp>1256214480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, but I don't think that RMS in his letter actually wanted to promote dual licensing.</p><p>The letter states his opinion on a very specific issue: the acquisition of Sun by Oracle. RMS thinks this is bad for MySQL and one of the reasons is that a source of funding, namely dual licensing, that used to be re-invested in the development of MySQL will probably stop being used that way. The point is that, if Oracle holds the copyright, sells licences, but doesn't give back to the community in terms of development of the GPL version, this will be worse than the current situation. RMS prefers that MySQL stays away from Oracle, this doesn't mean that he likes dual licensing (after all, none of the GNU software is dual licenced).</p><p>The letter was sent to the European Commission in support of blocking the acquisition. It's not the usual RMS speech.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , but I do n't think that RMS in his letter actually wanted to promote dual licensing.The letter states his opinion on a very specific issue : the acquisition of Sun by Oracle .
RMS thinks this is bad for MySQL and one of the reasons is that a source of funding , namely dual licensing , that used to be re-invested in the development of MySQL will probably stop being used that way .
The point is that , if Oracle holds the copyright , sells licences , but does n't give back to the community in terms of development of the GPL version , this will be worse than the current situation .
RMS prefers that MySQL stays away from Oracle , this does n't mean that he likes dual licensing ( after all , none of the GNU software is dual licenced ) .The letter was sent to the European Commission in support of blocking the acquisition .
It 's not the usual RMS speech .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, but I don't think that RMS in his letter actually wanted to promote dual licensing.The letter states his opinion on a very specific issue: the acquisition of Sun by Oracle.
RMS thinks this is bad for MySQL and one of the reasons is that a source of funding, namely dual licensing, that used to be re-invested in the development of MySQL will probably stop being used that way.
The point is that, if Oracle holds the copyright, sells licences, but doesn't give back to the community in terms of development of the GPL version, this will be worse than the current situation.
RMS prefers that MySQL stays away from Oracle, this doesn't mean that he likes dual licensing (after all, none of the GNU software is dual licenced).The letter was sent to the European Commission in support of blocking the acquisition.
It's not the usual RMS speech.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839255</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839295</id>
	<title>Forgive me if I'm wrong but</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256244660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't there already an open source fork of MySQL?  Is anybody actually paying for Sun's?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't there already an open source fork of MySQL ?
Is anybody actually paying for Sun 's ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't there already an open source fork of MySQL?
Is anybody actually paying for Sun's?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29840113</id>
	<title>Dual Licensing ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256205780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sorry, but I just really don't get what the problem is either... ?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , but I just really do n't get what the problem is either... ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, but I just really don't get what the problem is either... ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29840321</id>
	<title>Re:That's a new one</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1256207040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Yeah, apparently as long as [some of?] the source remains GPL, RMS seems okay with dual licensing.</p></div></blockquote><p>With the GPLv3 and its differential treatment of B2B vs. B2C software, its pretty clear that the FSF has decided to aggressively leverage the GPL's more restrictive nature, compared to other Free licenses, as a way to push business adoption of the GPL over other Free licenses, and a willingness to restructure where those restrictions cut to meet the preferences of big vendors.</p><p>Stallman's praise of the MySQL dual licensing model seems perfectly consistent with this more tribal, less ideological approach of the FSF.</p><p>OTOH, I think ultimately the fact that this restrictiveness, which creates a structurally-preferred-vendor for GPL software even if others are theoretically free to create GPL, but not proprietary, alternatives, is a big selling point of the GPL to vendors is also, in the long-term, going to turn into more of a market liability for the GPL than a strength, since its a negative from the point of both downstream developers and non-developer users, since it incorporates the same kind -- though a lesser degree -- of copyright-owner vendor lock-in to GPL-licensed products that exists with proprietary products.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , apparently as long as [ some of ?
] the source remains GPL , RMS seems okay with dual licensing.With the GPLv3 and its differential treatment of B2B vs. B2C software , its pretty clear that the FSF has decided to aggressively leverage the GPL 's more restrictive nature , compared to other Free licenses , as a way to push business adoption of the GPL over other Free licenses , and a willingness to restructure where those restrictions cut to meet the preferences of big vendors.Stallman 's praise of the MySQL dual licensing model seems perfectly consistent with this more tribal , less ideological approach of the FSF.OTOH , I think ultimately the fact that this restrictiveness , which creates a structurally-preferred-vendor for GPL software even if others are theoretically free to create GPL , but not proprietary , alternatives , is a big selling point of the GPL to vendors is also , in the long-term , going to turn into more of a market liability for the GPL than a strength , since its a negative from the point of both downstream developers and non-developer users , since it incorporates the same kind -- though a lesser degree -- of copyright-owner vendor lock-in to GPL-licensed products that exists with proprietary products .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, apparently as long as [some of?
] the source remains GPL, RMS seems okay with dual licensing.With the GPLv3 and its differential treatment of B2B vs. B2C software, its pretty clear that the FSF has decided to aggressively leverage the GPL's more restrictive nature, compared to other Free licenses, as a way to push business adoption of the GPL over other Free licenses, and a willingness to restructure where those restrictions cut to meet the preferences of big vendors.Stallman's praise of the MySQL dual licensing model seems perfectly consistent with this more tribal, less ideological approach of the FSF.OTOH, I think ultimately the fact that this restrictiveness, which creates a structurally-preferred-vendor for GPL software even if others are theoretically free to create GPL, but not proprietary, alternatives, is a big selling point of the GPL to vendors is also, in the long-term, going to turn into more of a market liability for the GPL than a strength, since its a negative from the point of both downstream developers and non-developer users, since it incorporates the same kind -- though a lesser degree -- of copyright-owner vendor lock-in to GPL-licensed products that exists with proprietary products.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839495</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29842229</id>
	<title>Re:Free software/open source diffs aids understand</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256224140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> The open source movement is interested in a development methodology aimed primarily at businesses, not framing issues in terms of user's software freedom. Open source proponents aren't taught to think in terms of user's software freedom. This too can lead to the loss of software freedom.</p></div><p>Right on.</p><p>The "Open Source Movement"  AKA the "Linux Movement" advocates free software by shoveling purist ideology down people's throats whether they want it or not.<br>The whole "If we port it to Windows [or FOO], we will hurt Linux" concept is straight from Open Source land.  "Open Source" is like a parasite, slowly strangling free software<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:\</p><p>Message to open source advocates:<br>People shouldn't be pressured to use one thing or another becauses of your beliefs.  Lets keep this in the scope of software development where it belongs...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The open source movement is interested in a development methodology aimed primarily at businesses , not framing issues in terms of user 's software freedom .
Open source proponents are n't taught to think in terms of user 's software freedom .
This too can lead to the loss of software freedom.Right on.The " Open Source Movement " AKA the " Linux Movement " advocates free software by shoveling purist ideology down people 's throats whether they want it or not.The whole " If we port it to Windows [ or FOO ] , we will hurt Linux " concept is straight from Open Source land .
" Open Source " is like a parasite , slowly strangling free software : \ Message to open source advocates : People should n't be pressured to use one thing or another becauses of your beliefs .
Lets keep this in the scope of software development where it belongs.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> The open source movement is interested in a development methodology aimed primarily at businesses, not framing issues in terms of user's software freedom.
Open source proponents aren't taught to think in terms of user's software freedom.
This too can lead to the loss of software freedom.Right on.The "Open Source Movement"  AKA the "Linux Movement" advocates free software by shoveling purist ideology down people's throats whether they want it or not.The whole "If we port it to Windows [or FOO], we will hurt Linux" concept is straight from Open Source land.
"Open Source" is like a parasite, slowly strangling free software :\Message to open source advocates:People shouldn't be pressured to use one thing or another becauses of your beliefs.
Lets keep this in the scope of software development where it belongs...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29841971</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29841343</id>
	<title>Re:This isn't the first time this has happened.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256213460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>People also forget he champions free as in speech software. He's never been anti commercial.</htmltext>
<tokenext>People also forget he champions free as in speech software .
He 's never been anti commercial .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People also forget he champions free as in speech software.
He's never been anti commercial.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839505</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29840281</id>
	<title>No way to prevent dual licensing?</title>
	<author>pmontra</author>
	<datestamp>1256206860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If I'm the author of a GPLed piece of software I still own the software I wrote so I can decide to make a closed source fork. Did I get it wrong? If I got it right, dual licensing is a pretty normal consequence of my ownership of the code. The only way to prevent it would be to surrender the ownership of the code, but if I don't own it, how can I license it? Without an owner the code would be in the public domain where anybody can take it and use it for closed source projects. So what's the way out? Maybe a license that binds me to use the code only under its terms?</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I 'm the author of a GPLed piece of software I still own the software I wrote so I can decide to make a closed source fork .
Did I get it wrong ?
If I got it right , dual licensing is a pretty normal consequence of my ownership of the code .
The only way to prevent it would be to surrender the ownership of the code , but if I do n't own it , how can I license it ?
Without an owner the code would be in the public domain where anybody can take it and use it for closed source projects .
So what 's the way out ?
Maybe a license that binds me to use the code only under its terms ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I'm the author of a GPLed piece of software I still own the software I wrote so I can decide to make a closed source fork.
Did I get it wrong?
If I got it right, dual licensing is a pretty normal consequence of my ownership of the code.
The only way to prevent it would be to surrender the ownership of the code, but if I don't own it, how can I license it?
Without an owner the code would be in the public domain where anybody can take it and use it for closed source projects.
So what's the way out?
Maybe a license that binds me to use the code only under its terms?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29845051</id>
	<title>Re:So what</title>
	<author>stim</author>
	<datestamp>1256306880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The makers of proprietary software force you to agree to a massive, complicated license before you can use their products because they want to control and restrict what you can do.  Let's not pretend that GPL software is any different.</p></div><p>Last time I checked I didn't have to agree to ANY license agreement to <b>use</b> GPL software.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The makers of proprietary software force you to agree to a massive , complicated license before you can use their products because they want to control and restrict what you can do .
Let 's not pretend that GPL software is any different.Last time I checked I did n't have to agree to ANY license agreement to use GPL software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The makers of proprietary software force you to agree to a massive, complicated license before you can use their products because they want to control and restrict what you can do.
Let's not pretend that GPL software is any different.Last time I checked I didn't have to agree to ANY license agreement to use GPL software.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839679</id>
	<title>You're confused.</title>
	<author>XanC</author>
	<datestamp>1256203560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The GPL is <strong>not</strong> an EULA.  In your book example, you can buy, read, resell, etc, the book in question.  Exactly what you can do with any software, barring (possibly) an EULA.</p><p>You can certainly do all that with GPL software without ever reading or agreeing to the GPL.  Agreement is not required for use.</p><p>Other actions, such as making and distributing copies, are restricted by copyright law, and apply to books as well as software regardless of license.  The GPL happens to be a license which allows copying and redistribution, actions which are otherwise forbidden by copyright.  You only must agree to GPL when you take action that bumps against copyright law.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The GPL is not an EULA .
In your book example , you can buy , read , resell , etc , the book in question .
Exactly what you can do with any software , barring ( possibly ) an EULA.You can certainly do all that with GPL software without ever reading or agreeing to the GPL .
Agreement is not required for use.Other actions , such as making and distributing copies , are restricted by copyright law , and apply to books as well as software regardless of license .
The GPL happens to be a license which allows copying and redistribution , actions which are otherwise forbidden by copyright .
You only must agree to GPL when you take action that bumps against copyright law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The GPL is not an EULA.
In your book example, you can buy, read, resell, etc, the book in question.
Exactly what you can do with any software, barring (possibly) an EULA.You can certainly do all that with GPL software without ever reading or agreeing to the GPL.
Agreement is not required for use.Other actions, such as making and distributing copies, are restricted by copyright law, and apply to books as well as software regardless of license.
The GPL happens to be a license which allows copying and redistribution, actions which are otherwise forbidden by copyright.
You only must agree to GPL when you take action that bumps against copyright law.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839555</id>
	<title>So what</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256202840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To call Stallman a kook and crackpot would be overly flattering.  He isn't concerned with "freedom", he is only interested in pushing a personal agenda.  That's what the GPL is really all about.  If you truly believe in software freedom then you absolutely reject the entire notion of software licensing.</p><p>Have you ever bought a book?  Furniture? Clothing? A toaster, microwave or television?  Did you have to agree to a license before you could use any of these items?  NO.  If you want software freedom, then there is only one license -- no license at all.  Here's the software, you are free do do what you want.</p><p>The makers of proprietary software force you to agree to a massive, complicated license before you can use their products because they want to control and restrict what you can do.  Let's not pretend that GPL software is any different.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To call Stallman a kook and crackpot would be overly flattering .
He is n't concerned with " freedom " , he is only interested in pushing a personal agenda .
That 's what the GPL is really all about .
If you truly believe in software freedom then you absolutely reject the entire notion of software licensing.Have you ever bought a book ?
Furniture ? Clothing ?
A toaster , microwave or television ?
Did you have to agree to a license before you could use any of these items ?
NO. If you want software freedom , then there is only one license -- no license at all .
Here 's the software , you are free do do what you want.The makers of proprietary software force you to agree to a massive , complicated license before you can use their products because they want to control and restrict what you can do .
Let 's not pretend that GPL software is any different .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To call Stallman a kook and crackpot would be overly flattering.
He isn't concerned with "freedom", he is only interested in pushing a personal agenda.
That's what the GPL is really all about.
If you truly believe in software freedom then you absolutely reject the entire notion of software licensing.Have you ever bought a book?
Furniture? Clothing?
A toaster, microwave or television?
Did you have to agree to a license before you could use any of these items?
NO.  If you want software freedom, then there is only one license -- no license at all.
Here's the software, you are free do do what you want.The makers of proprietary software force you to agree to a massive, complicated license before you can use their products because they want to control and restrict what you can do.
Let's not pretend that GPL software is any different.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29841805</id>
	<title>It's a good letter and a good counterpoint</title>
	<author>Klync</author>
	<datestamp>1256217300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just posted this Brian Krow's blog, but it's caught in moderation:</p><p>I agree with a lot of your perspective here. I somewhat have to given your own contributions to the code ecosystem. But I don't see how this is incompatible with what KEI is arguing. Their letter is about a specific event with a specific company, whereas you are discussing general notions of what is better.</p><p>I don't see how RMS et al suffered from a lack of imagination. They are making a very credible case about the likely outcome of what is going to happen here and how that might impact end users, i.e. the general public, i.e. EU citizens. I'm not as close to the issue as you might be, but their case sounds right to me. And I hope the EU takes this into consideration. KEI is arguing that what was once MySQL AB can continue as an entity - whether a subsidiary or independent company - just not fairly under ownership by Oracle.</p><p>While their letter doesn't pass judgement on the MySQL project's choice of license, I read their case as a warning for people like you and I who care about software freedom: taking out the "and future versions" clause while offering the code under another licence will inhibit future contributions from the community at large. As others have noted, many were vaguely reluctant to trust MySQL's model from the beginning.</p><p>But, that's where the project now is, and that's where the company now is, and the decision to be made isn't about whether this is a cathedral or a bazaar - it's over whether Oracle should own that company and its assets (i.e. code copyright).</p><p>To which I would add: KEI's letter says nothing about a copyright holder's right to re-issue code under multiple business licenses, nor about any interpretation of a license's suitability for any business or community organizing model.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just posted this Brian Krow 's blog , but it 's caught in moderation : I agree with a lot of your perspective here .
I somewhat have to given your own contributions to the code ecosystem .
But I do n't see how this is incompatible with what KEI is arguing .
Their letter is about a specific event with a specific company , whereas you are discussing general notions of what is better.I do n't see how RMS et al suffered from a lack of imagination .
They are making a very credible case about the likely outcome of what is going to happen here and how that might impact end users , i.e .
the general public , i.e .
EU citizens .
I 'm not as close to the issue as you might be , but their case sounds right to me .
And I hope the EU takes this into consideration .
KEI is arguing that what was once MySQL AB can continue as an entity - whether a subsidiary or independent company - just not fairly under ownership by Oracle.While their letter does n't pass judgement on the MySQL project 's choice of license , I read their case as a warning for people like you and I who care about software freedom : taking out the " and future versions " clause while offering the code under another licence will inhibit future contributions from the community at large .
As others have noted , many were vaguely reluctant to trust MySQL 's model from the beginning.But , that 's where the project now is , and that 's where the company now is , and the decision to be made is n't about whether this is a cathedral or a bazaar - it 's over whether Oracle should own that company and its assets ( i.e .
code copyright ) .To which I would add : KEI 's letter says nothing about a copyright holder 's right to re-issue code under multiple business licenses , nor about any interpretation of a license 's suitability for any business or community organizing model .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just posted this Brian Krow's blog, but it's caught in moderation:I agree with a lot of your perspective here.
I somewhat have to given your own contributions to the code ecosystem.
But I don't see how this is incompatible with what KEI is arguing.
Their letter is about a specific event with a specific company, whereas you are discussing general notions of what is better.I don't see how RMS et al suffered from a lack of imagination.
They are making a very credible case about the likely outcome of what is going to happen here and how that might impact end users, i.e.
the general public, i.e.
EU citizens.
I'm not as close to the issue as you might be, but their case sounds right to me.
And I hope the EU takes this into consideration.
KEI is arguing that what was once MySQL AB can continue as an entity - whether a subsidiary or independent company - just not fairly under ownership by Oracle.While their letter doesn't pass judgement on the MySQL project's choice of license, I read their case as a warning for people like you and I who care about software freedom: taking out the "and future versions" clause while offering the code under another licence will inhibit future contributions from the community at large.
As others have noted, many were vaguely reluctant to trust MySQL's model from the beginning.But, that's where the project now is, and that's where the company now is, and the decision to be made isn't about whether this is a cathedral or a bazaar - it's over whether Oracle should own that company and its assets (i.e.
code copyright).To which I would add: KEI's letter says nothing about a copyright holder's right to re-issue code under multiple business licenses, nor about any interpretation of a license's suitability for any business or community organizing model.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839995</id>
	<title>WTFPL</title>
	<author>Mathinker</author>
	<datestamp>1256205180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; If you want software freedom, then there is only one license -- no license at all.</p><p>Nope. You could license under the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTFPL" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">WTFPL</a> [wikipedia.org], which is a recognized Open Source license, <a href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses" title="gnu.org" rel="nofollow">fully compatible with the GPL</a> [gnu.org].</p><p>&gt; Let's not pretend that GPL software is any different.</p><p>It is. There are absolutely no conditions imposed in order to use GPL licensed software, as long as you don't distribute it in any way. However, as you correctly point out, the average proprietary software's EULA has gobs of conditions which you have to fulfill to be allowed to even use the software as it was meant to be used. Probably one of the reasons why no one is actually sure if EULAs are enforceable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; If you want software freedom , then there is only one license -- no license at all.Nope .
You could license under the WTFPL [ wikipedia.org ] , which is a recognized Open Source license , fully compatible with the GPL [ gnu.org ] . &gt; Let 's not pretend that GPL software is any different.It is .
There are absolutely no conditions imposed in order to use GPL licensed software , as long as you do n't distribute it in any way .
However , as you correctly point out , the average proprietary software 's EULA has gobs of conditions which you have to fulfill to be allowed to even use the software as it was meant to be used .
Probably one of the reasons why no one is actually sure if EULAs are enforceable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; If you want software freedom, then there is only one license -- no license at all.Nope.
You could license under the WTFPL [wikipedia.org], which is a recognized Open Source license, fully compatible with the GPL [gnu.org].&gt; Let's not pretend that GPL software is any different.It is.
There are absolutely no conditions imposed in order to use GPL licensed software, as long as you don't distribute it in any way.
However, as you correctly point out, the average proprietary software's EULA has gobs of conditions which you have to fulfill to be allowed to even use the software as it was meant to be used.
Probably one of the reasons why no one is actually sure if EULAs are enforceable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29841591</id>
	<title>Re:So what</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256215380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i think you should need a license to post such blatently wrong uninformed toss on slashdot, but there we go<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i think you should need a license to post such blatently wrong uninformed toss on slashdot , but there we go .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i think you should need a license to post such blatently wrong uninformed toss on slashdot, but there we go ...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29842615</id>
	<title>Re:So what</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256229000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>While I agree that RMS is an ideologue of the worst kind</i></p><p>Of the "best" kind, for sure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While I agree that RMS is an ideologue of the worst kindOf the " best " kind , for sure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I agree that RMS is an ideologue of the worst kindOf the "best" kind, for sure.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839699</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29840211</id>
	<title>Re:So what</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256206380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Another MS fanboi gets schooled. LOL.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Another MS fanboi gets schooled .
LOL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another MS fanboi gets schooled.
LOL.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839505</id>
	<title>This isn't the first time this has happened.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256202540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ghostview used to have (and may still have) a dual-licensing setup -- the most up-to-date version of Ghostview was under a non-free license that could be purchased by companies that wanted Acrobat support on platforms Adobe wasn't interested in supporting, and the older versions of Ghostview were released under the GPL.  I remember RMS commenting on this at the time, and his comment was "I'd rather it be all GPL, but if that's what the creator needs to do in order to support his work so be it."</p><p>Perhaps I misunderstand the article, but I don't see this as a new position or a deviation on RMS' part. I also personally disagree that it's "anti Open Source" -- first, on a pedantic level, RMS would say that the issue had nothing to do with "Open Source," rather it was about "Free Software."<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-) Second, and probably a lot more relevant, if software is licensed under the GPL, then it's licensed under the GPL. You're free to hack on it, distribute it, improve it, modify it, as much as you wish under that license, and any new work you add to that software under that license stays under that license as well. So what exactly are you losing?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ghostview used to have ( and may still have ) a dual-licensing setup -- the most up-to-date version of Ghostview was under a non-free license that could be purchased by companies that wanted Acrobat support on platforms Adobe was n't interested in supporting , and the older versions of Ghostview were released under the GPL .
I remember RMS commenting on this at the time , and his comment was " I 'd rather it be all GPL , but if that 's what the creator needs to do in order to support his work so be it .
" Perhaps I misunderstand the article , but I do n't see this as a new position or a deviation on RMS ' part .
I also personally disagree that it 's " anti Open Source " -- first , on a pedantic level , RMS would say that the issue had nothing to do with " Open Source , " rather it was about " Free Software .
" ; - ) Second , and probably a lot more relevant , if software is licensed under the GPL , then it 's licensed under the GPL .
You 're free to hack on it , distribute it , improve it , modify it , as much as you wish under that license , and any new work you add to that software under that license stays under that license as well .
So what exactly are you losing ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ghostview used to have (and may still have) a dual-licensing setup -- the most up-to-date version of Ghostview was under a non-free license that could be purchased by companies that wanted Acrobat support on platforms Adobe wasn't interested in supporting, and the older versions of Ghostview were released under the GPL.
I remember RMS commenting on this at the time, and his comment was "I'd rather it be all GPL, but if that's what the creator needs to do in order to support his work so be it.
"Perhaps I misunderstand the article, but I don't see this as a new position or a deviation on RMS' part.
I also personally disagree that it's "anti Open Source" -- first, on a pedantic level, RMS would say that the issue had nothing to do with "Open Source," rather it was about "Free Software.
" ;-) Second, and probably a lot more relevant, if software is licensed under the GPL, then it's licensed under the GPL.
You're free to hack on it, distribute it, improve it, modify it, as much as you wish under that license, and any new work you add to that software under that license stays under that license as well.
So what exactly are you losing?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29840763</id>
	<title>Someone tag this story "religiouswar"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256209440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't care about religious wars.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't care about religious wars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't care about religious wars.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839255</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29841971</id>
	<title>Free software/open source diffs aids understanding</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256220180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, pointing out <a href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html" title="gnu.org">why Open Source misses the point of Free Software</a> [gnu.org] isn't pedantic or irrelevant, these differences are real and they explain why RMS takes the position you just pointed out.</p><p>RMS, as you rightly point out, understands that non-free software which eventually becomes free software is significantly better than non-free software that stays non-free forever because the former leads to eventually respecting our software freedom while the other can lead to our loss of software freedom.  The open source movement is interested in a development methodology aimed primarily at businesses, not framing issues in terms of user's software freedom.  Open source proponents aren't taught to think in terms of user's software freedom.  This too can lead to the loss of software freedom.  So whenever someone licenses a non-free program, open source advocates have little reason to object despite how that chips away at our freedom (from the aforementioned essay, "This attitude will reward schemes that take away our freedom, leading to its loss.").  Free software activists, on the other hand, lament the disrespect for user's freedom which motivates them to support a project to develop a free replacement so that everyone can do that job whilst retaining their software freedom.  Finally, as for the GPL: RMS wrote the GPL with user's freedoms in mind.  The reason we enjoy the freedoms you champion at the end of your post is precisely because RMS pays attention to all computer user's software freedom.  Had he taken an interest in mere development methodology instead, proprietary derivatives might be far more common than they are.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , pointing out why Open Source misses the point of Free Software [ gnu.org ] is n't pedantic or irrelevant , these differences are real and they explain why RMS takes the position you just pointed out.RMS , as you rightly point out , understands that non-free software which eventually becomes free software is significantly better than non-free software that stays non-free forever because the former leads to eventually respecting our software freedom while the other can lead to our loss of software freedom .
The open source movement is interested in a development methodology aimed primarily at businesses , not framing issues in terms of user 's software freedom .
Open source proponents are n't taught to think in terms of user 's software freedom .
This too can lead to the loss of software freedom .
So whenever someone licenses a non-free program , open source advocates have little reason to object despite how that chips away at our freedom ( from the aforementioned essay , " This attitude will reward schemes that take away our freedom , leading to its loss. " ) .
Free software activists , on the other hand , lament the disrespect for user 's freedom which motivates them to support a project to develop a free replacement so that everyone can do that job whilst retaining their software freedom .
Finally , as for the GPL : RMS wrote the GPL with user 's freedoms in mind .
The reason we enjoy the freedoms you champion at the end of your post is precisely because RMS pays attention to all computer user 's software freedom .
Had he taken an interest in mere development methodology instead , proprietary derivatives might be far more common than they are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, pointing out why Open Source misses the point of Free Software [gnu.org] isn't pedantic or irrelevant, these differences are real and they explain why RMS takes the position you just pointed out.RMS, as you rightly point out, understands that non-free software which eventually becomes free software is significantly better than non-free software that stays non-free forever because the former leads to eventually respecting our software freedom while the other can lead to our loss of software freedom.
The open source movement is interested in a development methodology aimed primarily at businesses, not framing issues in terms of user's software freedom.
Open source proponents aren't taught to think in terms of user's software freedom.
This too can lead to the loss of software freedom.
So whenever someone licenses a non-free program, open source advocates have little reason to object despite how that chips away at our freedom (from the aforementioned essay, "This attitude will reward schemes that take away our freedom, leading to its loss.").
Free software activists, on the other hand, lament the disrespect for user's freedom which motivates them to support a project to develop a free replacement so that everyone can do that job whilst retaining their software freedom.
Finally, as for the GPL: RMS wrote the GPL with user's freedoms in mind.
The reason we enjoy the freedoms you champion at the end of your post is precisely because RMS pays attention to all computer user's software freedom.
Had he taken an interest in mere development methodology instead, proprietary derivatives might be far more common than they are.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839505</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839255</id>
	<title>That's a new one</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256244360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did someone just accuse RMS of supporting commercial licenses anywhere near Free Software?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did someone just accuse RMS of supporting commercial licenses anywhere near Free Software ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did someone just accuse RMS of supporting commercial licenses anywhere near Free Software?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839659</id>
	<title>Re:Forgive me if I'm wrong but</title>
	<author>benjamindees</author>
	<datestamp>1256203380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow.  What an incredibly weak argument.  Surely someone could have suggested to separate the (legitimate) concern of Oracle's burgeoning database monopoly from Stallman's (irrelevant) interest in pushing all GPL2 software to GPL3.</p><p>I mean, I couldn't begin to guess what the EC might be inclined to do, but anti-trust regulations usually exist in order to prevent anti-competitive monopolies, not to make all software meet an extremely narrow definition of free (libre).  If there is a succinct method of connecting the two, nothing linked to in the summary managed to accomplish it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow .
What an incredibly weak argument .
Surely someone could have suggested to separate the ( legitimate ) concern of Oracle 's burgeoning database monopoly from Stallman 's ( irrelevant ) interest in pushing all GPL2 software to GPL3.I mean , I could n't begin to guess what the EC might be inclined to do , but anti-trust regulations usually exist in order to prevent anti-competitive monopolies , not to make all software meet an extremely narrow definition of free ( libre ) .
If there is a succinct method of connecting the two , nothing linked to in the summary managed to accomplish it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow.
What an incredibly weak argument.
Surely someone could have suggested to separate the (legitimate) concern of Oracle's burgeoning database monopoly from Stallman's (irrelevant) interest in pushing all GPL2 software to GPL3.I mean, I couldn't begin to guess what the EC might be inclined to do, but anti-trust regulations usually exist in order to prevent anti-competitive monopolies, not to make all software meet an extremely narrow definition of free (libre).
If there is a succinct method of connecting the two, nothing linked to in the summary managed to accomplish it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839431</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839821</id>
	<title>read between the lines</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256204280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't read here that Stallman advocates dual licensing. He is merely stating the historical situation of the mysql licensing model. Acutally, you can read between the lines of his letter to EU. His argument is that the dual license of mysql is going to kill mysql development. He says that only Oracle can hold a commercial license for mysql, and due to Oracle's conflct of interest, mysql will languish.</p><p>So, between the lines, I see a warning from Stallman to those who use dual licensing. You may get the benefit from developers contributing for free to the product, but in the end, you will be screwed if someone with big bucks becomes the one and only holder of commerical license.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't read here that Stallman advocates dual licensing .
He is merely stating the historical situation of the mysql licensing model .
Acutally , you can read between the lines of his letter to EU .
His argument is that the dual license of mysql is going to kill mysql development .
He says that only Oracle can hold a commercial license for mysql , and due to Oracle 's conflct of interest , mysql will languish.So , between the lines , I see a warning from Stallman to those who use dual licensing .
You may get the benefit from developers contributing for free to the product , but in the end , you will be screwed if someone with big bucks becomes the one and only holder of commerical license .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't read here that Stallman advocates dual licensing.
He is merely stating the historical situation of the mysql licensing model.
Acutally, you can read between the lines of his letter to EU.
His argument is that the dual license of mysql is going to kill mysql development.
He says that only Oracle can hold a commercial license for mysql, and due to Oracle's conflct of interest, mysql will languish.So, between the lines, I see a warning from Stallman to those who use dual licensing.
You may get the benefit from developers contributing for free to the product, but in the end, you will be screwed if someone with big bucks becomes the one and only holder of commerical license.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29847085</id>
	<title>Re:This isn't the first time this has happened.</title>
	<author>gpuk</author>
	<datestamp>1256318280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;So what exactly are you losing?</p><p>From reading the letter, it seems one of the key things RMS worries about is that MySQL's GPL2 license did not include the "or later versions" clause. This effectively means that any fork of MySQL is doomed to forever remain licensed under the GPL2 while the majority of free software is expected to transition over to GPLv3 over the next few years. AFAIK, GPL3 and GPL2 code are not compatible. I think RMS worries that Oracle will cut off the commercial support and let the free version slowly rot under an old license. Ergo, MySQL with wither on the vine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; So what exactly are you losing ? From reading the letter , it seems one of the key things RMS worries about is that MySQL 's GPL2 license did not include the " or later versions " clause .
This effectively means that any fork of MySQL is doomed to forever remain licensed under the GPL2 while the majority of free software is expected to transition over to GPLv3 over the next few years .
AFAIK , GPL3 and GPL2 code are not compatible .
I think RMS worries that Oracle will cut off the commercial support and let the free version slowly rot under an old license .
Ergo , MySQL with wither on the vine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;So what exactly are you losing?From reading the letter, it seems one of the key things RMS worries about is that MySQL's GPL2 license did not include the "or later versions" clause.
This effectively means that any fork of MySQL is doomed to forever remain licensed under the GPL2 while the majority of free software is expected to transition over to GPLv3 over the next few years.
AFAIK, GPL3 and GPL2 code are not compatible.
I think RMS worries that Oracle will cut off the commercial support and let the free version slowly rot under an old license.
Ergo, MySQL with wither on the vine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839505</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839635</id>
	<title>RMS doesn't care about open source</title>
	<author>harmonise</author>
	<datestamp>1256203200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>By pushing for the right to turn GPL-licensed software into the heart of a proprietary business model, he is squandering an opportunity for advocacy of <b>open source</b> within the European Union.</p></div></blockquote><p>RMS could not care less about open source. He only cares about free software. There's a difference and he will go to great pains to point out the difference if you engage him using the term "open source." If you are going to respond to him, the least you can do is use the terminology correctly. Otherwise he'll interpret what you say differently than what you probably meant.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>By pushing for the right to turn GPL-licensed software into the heart of a proprietary business model , he is squandering an opportunity for advocacy of open source within the European Union.RMS could not care less about open source .
He only cares about free software .
There 's a difference and he will go to great pains to point out the difference if you engage him using the term " open source .
" If you are going to respond to him , the least you can do is use the terminology correctly .
Otherwise he 'll interpret what you say differently than what you probably meant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By pushing for the right to turn GPL-licensed software into the heart of a proprietary business model, he is squandering an opportunity for advocacy of open source within the European Union.RMS could not care less about open source.
He only cares about free software.
There's a difference and he will go to great pains to point out the difference if you engage him using the term "open source.
" If you are going to respond to him, the least you can do is use the terminology correctly.
Otherwise he'll interpret what you say differently than what you probably meant.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839733</id>
	<title>Dual Licensing is a good business model</title>
	<author>Bruce Perens</author>
	<datestamp>1256203800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some of us would like to be able to support our development of Free Software directly through the software. Many of us support ourselves in other ways and don't care about this. But for those who want to get the support from the software, dual-licensing is a good way to do it.</p><p>
It satisfies the folks who don't like the GPL, because it gives them a different set of rights in exchange for some cash. Both the contributions by other developers who follow the GPL and cash are ways of providing a quid-pro-quo for the original developer.</p><p>
What it doesn't satisfy is the folks who want a free ride instead of Free Software, because you have to pay for a commercial license. And IMO that strikes a good balance.</p><p>
Even RMS sees this. I think Brian's accusing him of being too moderate.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p><p> <i>Bruce</i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some of us would like to be able to support our development of Free Software directly through the software .
Many of us support ourselves in other ways and do n't care about this .
But for those who want to get the support from the software , dual-licensing is a good way to do it .
It satisfies the folks who do n't like the GPL , because it gives them a different set of rights in exchange for some cash .
Both the contributions by other developers who follow the GPL and cash are ways of providing a quid-pro-quo for the original developer .
What it does n't satisfy is the folks who want a free ride instead of Free Software , because you have to pay for a commercial license .
And IMO that strikes a good balance .
Even RMS sees this .
I think Brian 's accusing him of being too moderate .
: - ) Bruce</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some of us would like to be able to support our development of Free Software directly through the software.
Many of us support ourselves in other ways and don't care about this.
But for those who want to get the support from the software, dual-licensing is a good way to do it.
It satisfies the folks who don't like the GPL, because it gives them a different set of rights in exchange for some cash.
Both the contributions by other developers who follow the GPL and cash are ways of providing a quid-pro-quo for the original developer.
What it doesn't satisfy is the folks who want a free ride instead of Free Software, because you have to pay for a commercial license.
And IMO that strikes a good balance.
Even RMS sees this.
I think Brian's accusing him of being too moderate.
:-) Bruce</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839747</id>
	<title>Re:So what</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256203860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Idiot. GPL software restrictions are on redistribution, not usage. That's a massive different to the license shit you mentioned.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Idiot .
GPL software restrictions are on redistribution , not usage .
That 's a massive different to the license shit you mentioned .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Idiot.
GPL software restrictions are on redistribution, not usage.
That's a massive different to the license shit you mentioned.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29843783</id>
	<title>Re:This isn't the first time this has happened.</title>
	<author>dangitman</author>
	<datestamp>1256292780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>People also forget he champions free as in speech software. He's never been anti commercial.</p></div><p>Except, of course, for his comments that making a profit from software was unethical. How could that ever be construed as being anti-commercial?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>People also forget he champions free as in speech software .
He 's never been anti commercial.Except , of course , for his comments that making a profit from software was unethical .
How could that ever be construed as being anti-commercial ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People also forget he champions free as in speech software.
He's never been anti commercial.Except, of course, for his comments that making a profit from software was unethical.
How could that ever be construed as being anti-commercial?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29841343</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29840375</id>
	<title>Re:That's a new one</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256207280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>developers looking to use FLOSS</p></div><p>Are developers should be using FLOSS, it helps with the bad coffee breath.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>developers looking to use FLOSSAre developers should be using FLOSS , it helps with the bad coffee breath .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>developers looking to use FLOSSAre developers should be using FLOSS, it helps with the bad coffee breath.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839495</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_1939254_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29847085
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839505
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_1939254_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839895
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839295
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_1939254_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29840763
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839255
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_1939254_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839995
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839555
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_1939254_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29841941
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839573
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_1939254_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29847249
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29840549
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839767
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839555
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_1939254_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839679
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839555
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_1939254_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839955
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839555
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_1939254_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29842229
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29841971
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839505
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_1939254_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29841483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839255
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_1939254_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29842013
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839635
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_1939254_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29840375
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839495
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839255
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_1939254_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839747
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839555
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_1939254_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29843783
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29841343
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839505
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_1939254_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29840091
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839635
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_1939254_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29841109
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29840281
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_1939254_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29843837
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29840549
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839767
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839555
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_1939254_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839783
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839555
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_1939254_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839791
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839555
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_1939254_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29840321
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839495
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839255
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_1939254_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29840731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839733
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_1939254_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839629
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839295
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_1939254_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29845985
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839659
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839295
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_1939254_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29844053
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839659
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839295
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_1939254_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839555
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_1939254_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29840069
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839573
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_1939254_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29845051
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839555
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_1939254_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29853083
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29840045
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839573
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_1939254_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29851801
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839555
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_1939254_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29841185
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839495
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839255
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_1939254_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29841591
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839555
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_1939254_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29842615
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839699
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839555
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_1939254_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839655
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839555
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_1939254_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29840155
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839555
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_1939254_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839685
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839555
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_1939254_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29840425
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839555
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_1939254_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839965
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839555
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_1939254_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839703
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839555
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_1939254_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29840211
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839555
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_22_1939254.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29840893
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_22_1939254.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839255
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29840763
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839495
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29840375
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29841185
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29840321
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29841483
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_22_1939254.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839555
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839663
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839699
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29842615
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839995
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839679
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839791
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839703
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839655
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29840211
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29851801
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839767
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29840549
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29843837
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29847249
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839783
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29840425
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29841591
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839685
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839965
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839955
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839747
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29840155
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29845051
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_22_1939254.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29840281
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29841109
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_22_1939254.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839295
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839431
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839659
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29845985
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29844053
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839629
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839895
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_22_1939254.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839733
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29840731
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_22_1939254.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839635
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29840091
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29842013
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_22_1939254.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839505
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29841343
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29843783
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29841971
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29842229
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29847085
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_22_1939254.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29839573
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29840069
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29841941
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29840045
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1939254.29853083
</commentlist>
</conversation>
