<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_27_2115243</id>
	<title>New DoD Memo On Open Source Software</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1256640900000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>dwheeler writes <i>"The US Department of Defense has just released a <a href="http://www.dwheeler.com/blog/2009/10/27/#dod-oss-2009">new official memo on open source software</a>: 'Clarifying Guidance Regarding Open Source Software (OSS).' (The memo should be up shortly <a href="http://www.defenselink.mil/cio-nii/policy/memorandums.shtml">on this DoD site</a>.) This  memo is important for anyone who works with the DoD, including contractors, on software and systems that include software; it may influence many other organizations as well. The DoD had released a memo back in 2003, but 'misconceptions and misinterpretations... have hampered effective DoD use and development of OSS.' The new memo tries to counter those misconceptions and misinterpretations, and is very positive about OSS. In particular, it lists a number of potential advantages of OSS, and recommends that in certain cases the DoD release software as OSS."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>dwheeler writes " The US Department of Defense has just released a new official memo on open source software : 'Clarifying Guidance Regarding Open Source Software ( OSS ) .
' ( The memo should be up shortly on this DoD site .
) This memo is important for anyone who works with the DoD , including contractors , on software and systems that include software ; it may influence many other organizations as well .
The DoD had released a memo back in 2003 , but 'misconceptions and misinterpretations... have hampered effective DoD use and development of OSS .
' The new memo tries to counter those misconceptions and misinterpretations , and is very positive about OSS .
In particular , it lists a number of potential advantages of OSS , and recommends that in certain cases the DoD release software as OSS .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>dwheeler writes "The US Department of Defense has just released a new official memo on open source software: 'Clarifying Guidance Regarding Open Source Software (OSS).
' (The memo should be up shortly on this DoD site.
) This  memo is important for anyone who works with the DoD, including contractors, on software and systems that include software; it may influence many other organizations as well.
The DoD had released a memo back in 2003, but 'misconceptions and misinterpretations... have hampered effective DoD use and development of OSS.
' The new memo tries to counter those misconceptions and misinterpretations, and is very positive about OSS.
In particular, it lists a number of potential advantages of OSS, and recommends that in certain cases the DoD release software as OSS.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29892979</id>
	<title>Re:there's a few useful bits of software already</title>
	<author>mdarksbane</author>
	<datestamp>1256661180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Open Scene Graph is also heavily utilized by a lot of military sim software.</p><p>I know in my old government contractor job we used and contributed to probably ten or fifteen different open source projects.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Open Scene Graph is also heavily utilized by a lot of military sim software.I know in my old government contractor job we used and contributed to probably ten or fifteen different open source projects .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Open Scene Graph is also heavily utilized by a lot of military sim software.I know in my old government contractor job we used and contributed to probably ten or fifteen different open source projects.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29891001</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29892767</id>
	<title>I thank 7ou for yOour time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256658840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You join toJday!</htmltext>
<tokenext>You join toJday !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You join toJday!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29890887</id>
	<title>But ...</title>
	<author>KC1P</author>
	<datestamp>1256645100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;and recommends that in certain cases the DoD release software as OSS.</p><p>How can the DoD release software under a copyleft license when the federal government is incapable of holding copyrights in the first place?  I thought it was all automatically PD if it's not secret?  Not that that's stopped anyone from asserting copyright when it suits them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; and recommends that in certain cases the DoD release software as OSS.How can the DoD release software under a copyleft license when the federal government is incapable of holding copyrights in the first place ?
I thought it was all automatically PD if it 's not secret ?
Not that that 's stopped anyone from asserting copyright when it suits them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;and recommends that in certain cases the DoD release software as OSS.How can the DoD release software under a copyleft license when the federal government is incapable of holding copyrights in the first place?
I thought it was all automatically PD if it's not secret?
Not that that's stopped anyone from asserting copyright when it suits them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29891001</id>
	<title>there's a few useful bits of software already</title>
	<author>Trepidity</author>
	<datestamp>1256645640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In addition to using externally developed free software, various parts of the military have periodically released and continued to support some decent bits of software. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRL-CAD" title="wikipedia.org">BRL-CAD</a> [wikipedia.org] is from the Army Research Lab, and <a href="http://www.delta3d.org/" title="delta3d.org">Delta3d</a> [delta3d.org] is from the Naval Postgraduate School, to pick two examples off the top of my head.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In addition to using externally developed free software , various parts of the military have periodically released and continued to support some decent bits of software .
BRL-CAD [ wikipedia.org ] is from the Army Research Lab , and Delta3d [ delta3d.org ] is from the Naval Postgraduate School , to pick two examples off the top of my head .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In addition to using externally developed free software, various parts of the military have periodically released and continued to support some decent bits of software.
BRL-CAD [wikipedia.org] is from the Army Research Lab, and Delta3d [delta3d.org] is from the Naval Postgraduate School, to pick two examples off the top of my head.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29892757</id>
	<title>Re:But ...</title>
	<author>KC1P</author>
	<datestamp>1256658780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah but you must hold a copyright in order to put a license on the code in the first place.  And my understanding (possibly out of date and/or misinformed) is that US law forbids the federal government from holding copyrights, for the reasons that wizardforce said (WE paid for it so it already belongs to all of us).  Controlling distribution is exactly what a license does, since by default, copyright law basically says "no copying!" -- so the license gives conditions under which the copyright holder will allow users to copy the software.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah but you must hold a copyright in order to put a license on the code in the first place .
And my understanding ( possibly out of date and/or misinformed ) is that US law forbids the federal government from holding copyrights , for the reasons that wizardforce said ( WE paid for it so it already belongs to all of us ) .
Controlling distribution is exactly what a license does , since by default , copyright law basically says " no copying !
" -- so the license gives conditions under which the copyright holder will allow users to copy the software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah but you must hold a copyright in order to put a license on the code in the first place.
And my understanding (possibly out of date and/or misinformed) is that US law forbids the federal government from holding copyrights, for the reasons that wizardforce said (WE paid for it so it already belongs to all of us).
Controlling distribution is exactly what a license does, since by default, copyright law basically says "no copying!
" -- so the license gives conditions under which the copyright holder will allow users to copy the software.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29891307</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29900919</id>
	<title>Re:Hmm, for us non-Americans...</title>
	<author>risacher</author>
	<datestamp>1256759460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No.  At least not that conforms to the Open Source Definition, as published by the Open Source Initiative.</p><p>The OSD specifically says:</p><blockquote><div><p>5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups</p><p>The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.</p><p>6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor</p><p>The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.</p></div></blockquote><p>Which very explicitly means I can use your software inside my Baby-Mulching Machine  (Google for it).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No .
At least not that conforms to the Open Source Definition , as published by the Open Source Initiative.The OSD specifically says : 5 .
No Discrimination Against Persons or GroupsThe license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.6 .
No Discrimination Against Fields of EndeavorThe license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor .
For example , it may not restrict the program from being used in a business , or from being used for genetic research.Which very explicitly means I can use your software inside my Baby-Mulching Machine ( Google for it ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.
At least not that conforms to the Open Source Definition, as published by the Open Source Initiative.The OSD specifically says:5.
No Discrimination Against Persons or GroupsThe license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.6.
No Discrimination Against Fields of EndeavorThe license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor.
For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.Which very explicitly means I can use your software inside my Baby-Mulching Machine  (Google for it).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29893421</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29891015</id>
	<title>Re:This is very odd...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256645700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>the government is acting intelligently. I feel strange.</p></div><p>Maybe they have been taken over by aliens.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the government is acting intelligently .
I feel strange.Maybe they have been taken over by aliens .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the government is acting intelligently.
I feel strange.Maybe they have been taken over by aliens.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29890819</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29891105</id>
	<title>Mil uses lots of Linux and BSD</title>
	<author>flyingfsck</author>
	<datestamp>1256646120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Everywhere I go, there are Linux and BSD systems.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Everywhere I go , there are Linux and BSD systems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everywhere I go, there are Linux and BSD systems.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29890839</id>
	<title>NMCI</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256644860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think at least 50\% of the technical people in the Navy and Marine Corp would like to see (the next version of) NMCI switch to an open-source OS.</p><p>At least they can always dream...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think at least 50 \ % of the technical people in the Navy and Marine Corp would like to see ( the next version of ) NMCI switch to an open-source OS.At least they can always dream.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think at least 50\% of the technical people in the Navy and Marine Corp would like to see (the next version of) NMCI switch to an open-source OS.At least they can always dream...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29891085</id>
	<title>Re:This is very odd...</title>
	<author>wizardforce</author>
	<datestamp>1256646000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The government has always acted in its own interests.  Perhaps they have realised that releasing software as OSS suits their purposes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The government has always acted in its own interests .
Perhaps they have realised that releasing software as OSS suits their purposes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The government has always acted in its own interests.
Perhaps they have realised that releasing software as OSS suits their purposes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29890819</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29891431</id>
	<title>Re:Crash!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256647980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Holy SHIT chair-throwing jokes are old... and weren't even that funny to begin with...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Holy SHIT chair-throwing jokes are old... and were n't even that funny to begin with.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Holy SHIT chair-throwing jokes are old... and weren't even that funny to begin with...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29891109</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29892555</id>
	<title>Re:Crash!</title>
	<author>elijahu</author>
	<datestamp>1256657100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Shut up, Steve, and go back to figuring out how to get people to think that Windows 7 is as cool as Binging things on their Zune.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Shut up , Steve , and go back to figuring out how to get people to think that Windows 7 is as cool as Binging things on their Zune .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shut up, Steve, and go back to figuring out how to get people to think that Windows 7 is as cool as Binging things on their Zune.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29891431</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29895103</id>
	<title>Re:Hmm, for us non-Americans...</title>
	<author>davide marney</author>
	<datestamp>1256733000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Happily, since you released your contribution for free, your software that got used by military X <i>also</i> got used by military Y to nullify X.</p><p>The two waves cancel each other out, leaving a calm space where your code lives on doing some good.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Happily , since you released your contribution for free , your software that got used by military X also got used by military Y to nullify X.The two waves cancel each other out , leaving a calm space where your code lives on doing some good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Happily, since you released your contribution for free, your software that got used by military X also got used by military Y to nullify X.The two waves cancel each other out, leaving a calm space where your code lives on doing some good.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29893421</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29908089</id>
	<title>Health DOD</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256814540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does anyone have examples of health related OSS within the DOD or US gov?  Also can anyone comment on why VA's VISTA has a stumbling block relating to OSS?  Is it some Intersystems license?</p><p>I am mostly a lone voice on DOD panel trying to advocate for the above so would greatly appreciate detailed guidance/support</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does anyone have examples of health related OSS within the DOD or US gov ?
Also can anyone comment on why VA 's VISTA has a stumbling block relating to OSS ?
Is it some Intersystems license ? I am mostly a lone voice on DOD panel trying to advocate for the above so would greatly appreciate detailed guidance/support</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does anyone have examples of health related OSS within the DOD or US gov?
Also can anyone comment on why VA's VISTA has a stumbling block relating to OSS?
Is it some Intersystems license?I am mostly a lone voice on DOD panel trying to advocate for the above so would greatly appreciate detailed guidance/support</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29892395</id>
	<title>Some Points on the Memo</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256655660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was at the Mil-OSS conference this year where this memo was discussed quite a bit, and I just want to mention some things in response to some of the comments. Most of this was in David Wheeler's blog (the first link), but some might have been missed.
<br> <br>
Most government program/project managers are very slow to try new things like OSS.  Generally, this is not due to laziness or not being technically up to date, but rather because the number of rules and regulations that they can get hammered for failing to follow is so large that they tend to continue to follow a safe path unless it is incredibly clear that they won&rsquo;t get in trouble.  This memo is designed to give top cover and make clear to all PM&rsquo;s that using OSS is more than acceptable, it is actually preferred.
<br> <br>
1)  Although I can't say for sure how much the new administration's personnel in the Pentagon had to do with being signed, it probably was very little since the memo had been in production for years (rumor was that Dr. Pepper was going to give a free soda to everyone if it came out before 2010, but I don't think that's true).  Over beers, one of the people involved with its writing told the story of being asked whether the memo would be out before Thanksgiving and responding, "Without a doubt."  That was in 2007!!  It probably emerged more from the "Open Technology Roadmap" by John Scott, Mark Lucas, and JC Herz for Sue Peyton in 2006 than any political changes.
<br> <br>
2)  Much of the memo just clarifies parts of the DoD's official position on OSS, especially areas that were major targets for FUD by contractors who are trying to sell proprietary systems to the government.  For example, they would claim that procurement law requires commercial software to be used, and OSS wasn&rsquo;t COTS.  This was addressed by the 2003 memo, but still the misinformation persisted.  Additionally, procurement law requires that software either be warranted or the source code available.  Vendors would claim that since OSS isn&rsquo;t warranted, it couldn&rsquo;t be used, neglecting the second part of the requirement about source code.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was at the Mil-OSS conference this year where this memo was discussed quite a bit , and I just want to mention some things in response to some of the comments .
Most of this was in David Wheeler 's blog ( the first link ) , but some might have been missed .
Most government program/project managers are very slow to try new things like OSS .
Generally , this is not due to laziness or not being technically up to date , but rather because the number of rules and regulations that they can get hammered for failing to follow is so large that they tend to continue to follow a safe path unless it is incredibly clear that they won    t get in trouble .
This memo is designed to give top cover and make clear to all PM    s that using OSS is more than acceptable , it is actually preferred .
1 ) Although I ca n't say for sure how much the new administration 's personnel in the Pentagon had to do with being signed , it probably was very little since the memo had been in production for years ( rumor was that Dr. Pepper was going to give a free soda to everyone if it came out before 2010 , but I do n't think that 's true ) .
Over beers , one of the people involved with its writing told the story of being asked whether the memo would be out before Thanksgiving and responding , " Without a doubt .
" That was in 2007 ! !
It probably emerged more from the " Open Technology Roadmap " by John Scott , Mark Lucas , and JC Herz for Sue Peyton in 2006 than any political changes .
2 ) Much of the memo just clarifies parts of the DoD 's official position on OSS , especially areas that were major targets for FUD by contractors who are trying to sell proprietary systems to the government .
For example , they would claim that procurement law requires commercial software to be used , and OSS wasn    t COTS .
This was addressed by the 2003 memo , but still the misinformation persisted .
Additionally , procurement law requires that software either be warranted or the source code available .
Vendors would claim that since OSS isn    t warranted , it couldn    t be used , neglecting the second part of the requirement about source code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was at the Mil-OSS conference this year where this memo was discussed quite a bit, and I just want to mention some things in response to some of the comments.
Most of this was in David Wheeler's blog (the first link), but some might have been missed.
Most government program/project managers are very slow to try new things like OSS.
Generally, this is not due to laziness or not being technically up to date, but rather because the number of rules and regulations that they can get hammered for failing to follow is so large that they tend to continue to follow a safe path unless it is incredibly clear that they won’t get in trouble.
This memo is designed to give top cover and make clear to all PM’s that using OSS is more than acceptable, it is actually preferred.
1)  Although I can't say for sure how much the new administration's personnel in the Pentagon had to do with being signed, it probably was very little since the memo had been in production for years (rumor was that Dr. Pepper was going to give a free soda to everyone if it came out before 2010, but I don't think that's true).
Over beers, one of the people involved with its writing told the story of being asked whether the memo would be out before Thanksgiving and responding, "Without a doubt.
"  That was in 2007!!
It probably emerged more from the "Open Technology Roadmap" by John Scott, Mark Lucas, and JC Herz for Sue Peyton in 2006 than any political changes.
2)  Much of the memo just clarifies parts of the DoD's official position on OSS, especially areas that were major targets for FUD by contractors who are trying to sell proprietary systems to the government.
For example, they would claim that procurement law requires commercial software to be used, and OSS wasn’t COTS.
This was addressed by the 2003 memo, but still the misinformation persisted.
Additionally, procurement law requires that software either be warranted or the source code available.
Vendors would claim that since OSS isn’t warranted, it couldn’t be used, neglecting the second part of the requirement about source code.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29893335</id>
	<title>Anything written by gov't employees is Pub. Domain</title>
	<author>trygstad</author>
	<datestamp>1256665980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Any software product written by government employees (not incorporating proprietary or OSS code) is one better than OSS--by law it's in the public domain. As long as the software is not classified anyone can use and modify the code. When I was the Admin Officer for a Navy helicopter squadron in San Diego in the late 80's, we used to get software from the local Navy Air Rework Facility, who had a code shop. They would always tell us we MUST pay them for the software (yes the military uses chargebacks just like any other business) but we would just laugh at them and tell them that their code was in the public domain--so it was free. Then they'd tell us we could not use it without paying for support and we'd tell 'em if we couldn't figure it out, we just wouldn't use it. They had not figured out that you can't charge money--even bongo bucks--for something that is free.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Any software product written by government employees ( not incorporating proprietary or OSS code ) is one better than OSS--by law it 's in the public domain .
As long as the software is not classified anyone can use and modify the code .
When I was the Admin Officer for a Navy helicopter squadron in San Diego in the late 80 's , we used to get software from the local Navy Air Rework Facility , who had a code shop .
They would always tell us we MUST pay them for the software ( yes the military uses chargebacks just like any other business ) but we would just laugh at them and tell them that their code was in the public domain--so it was free .
Then they 'd tell us we could not use it without paying for support and we 'd tell 'em if we could n't figure it out , we just would n't use it .
They had not figured out that you ca n't charge money--even bongo bucks--for something that is free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any software product written by government employees (not incorporating proprietary or OSS code) is one better than OSS--by law it's in the public domain.
As long as the software is not classified anyone can use and modify the code.
When I was the Admin Officer for a Navy helicopter squadron in San Diego in the late 80's, we used to get software from the local Navy Air Rework Facility, who had a code shop.
They would always tell us we MUST pay them for the software (yes the military uses chargebacks just like any other business) but we would just laugh at them and tell them that their code was in the public domain--so it was free.
Then they'd tell us we could not use it without paying for support and we'd tell 'em if we couldn't figure it out, we just wouldn't use it.
They had not figured out that you can't charge money--even bongo bucks--for something that is free.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29891111</id>
	<title>This is great...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256646120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>My federal manager was decidedly anti-OSS, he would state that we can't get support on the OSS, so we couldn't use it, denying anything and everything that came through.  All I can say now is read it and weep.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My federal manager was decidedly anti-OSS , he would state that we ca n't get support on the OSS , so we could n't use it , denying anything and everything that came through .
All I can say now is read it and weep .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My federal manager was decidedly anti-OSS, he would state that we can't get support on the OSS, so we couldn't use it, denying anything and everything that came through.
All I can say now is read it and weep.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29897925</id>
	<title>Re:This is great...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256747160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, well, I'm not really so optimistic that this will get someone with that kind of attitude to use OSS.  If you read the memo, it gives a lot of things that they should take into account, but it doesn't give an easily reviewable set of guidelines as to how much weight they should put on the different factors.  It doesn't matter if he has to consider the open source alternative if he is going to consider it with a closed mind, at least the cynic in me seriously doubts that it would sway his final decision.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , well , I 'm not really so optimistic that this will get someone with that kind of attitude to use OSS .
If you read the memo , it gives a lot of things that they should take into account , but it does n't give an easily reviewable set of guidelines as to how much weight they should put on the different factors .
It does n't matter if he has to consider the open source alternative if he is going to consider it with a closed mind , at least the cynic in me seriously doubts that it would sway his final decision .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, well, I'm not really so optimistic that this will get someone with that kind of attitude to use OSS.
If you read the memo, it gives a lot of things that they should take into account, but it doesn't give an easily reviewable set of guidelines as to how much weight they should put on the different factors.
It doesn't matter if he has to consider the open source alternative if he is going to consider it with a closed mind, at least the cynic in me seriously doubts that it would sway his final decision.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29891111</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29891059</id>
	<title>Re:But ...</title>
	<author>KillerBob</author>
	<datestamp>1256645940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>How can the DoD release software under a copyleft license when the federal government is incapable of holding copyrights in the first place? I thought it was all automatically PD if it's not secret? Not that that's stopped anyone from asserting copyright when it suits them.</p></div></blockquote><p>Just because the DoD develops software doesn't mean they have to release it at all. You can request the software under Access to Information (FOIA in the US, I think?), but they can always cite national security reasons for not releasing, say, the guidance code for the Tomahawk missile.</p><p>Without having read the memo in full, I would presume that they're talking about what license to use when releasing stuff. I'd sincerely doubt that they would use something like the GPL/LGPL to release code, but there are other open source licences that are more in line with what the government does. The ones that leap immediately to mind are the BSD and MIT licenses, both of which had their births in the need to keep government-funded developments in the public domain.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How can the DoD release software under a copyleft license when the federal government is incapable of holding copyrights in the first place ?
I thought it was all automatically PD if it 's not secret ?
Not that that 's stopped anyone from asserting copyright when it suits them.Just because the DoD develops software does n't mean they have to release it at all .
You can request the software under Access to Information ( FOIA in the US , I think ?
) , but they can always cite national security reasons for not releasing , say , the guidance code for the Tomahawk missile.Without having read the memo in full , I would presume that they 're talking about what license to use when releasing stuff .
I 'd sincerely doubt that they would use something like the GPL/LGPL to release code , but there are other open source licences that are more in line with what the government does .
The ones that leap immediately to mind are the BSD and MIT licenses , both of which had their births in the need to keep government-funded developments in the public domain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How can the DoD release software under a copyleft license when the federal government is incapable of holding copyrights in the first place?
I thought it was all automatically PD if it's not secret?
Not that that's stopped anyone from asserting copyright when it suits them.Just because the DoD develops software doesn't mean they have to release it at all.
You can request the software under Access to Information (FOIA in the US, I think?
), but they can always cite national security reasons for not releasing, say, the guidance code for the Tomahawk missile.Without having read the memo in full, I would presume that they're talking about what license to use when releasing stuff.
I'd sincerely doubt that they would use something like the GPL/LGPL to release code, but there are other open source licences that are more in line with what the government does.
The ones that leap immediately to mind are the BSD and MIT licenses, both of which had their births in the need to keep government-funded developments in the public domain.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29890887</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29897713</id>
	<title>Re:But ...</title>
	<author>Adustust</author>
	<datestamp>1256746380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is correct, all that needs to be done to ensure that whatever developed software remains exempt from the Freedom of Information Act (5U.S.C.552) is classify it as FOUO (for offical use only) and slap a regulation on it, (IAW DoD 5400.11R)

As long as you can say that it would give an enemy knowledge of our inner processes, even how we format our harddrives, it can be FOUO.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is correct , all that needs to be done to ensure that whatever developed software remains exempt from the Freedom of Information Act ( 5U.S.C.552 ) is classify it as FOUO ( for offical use only ) and slap a regulation on it , ( IAW DoD 5400.11R ) As long as you can say that it would give an enemy knowledge of our inner processes , even how we format our harddrives , it can be FOUO .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is correct, all that needs to be done to ensure that whatever developed software remains exempt from the Freedom of Information Act (5U.S.C.552) is classify it as FOUO (for offical use only) and slap a regulation on it, (IAW DoD 5400.11R)

As long as you can say that it would give an enemy knowledge of our inner processes, even how we format our harddrives, it can be FOUO.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29891059</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29893113</id>
	<title>Re:Crash!</title>
	<author>rob333</author>
	<datestamp>1256662800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Eh, Windows , OS X and other non-crazy secure systems (Linux without MAC through SELinux being enabled/configured or AppArmor) stay pretty far away from the computers that help run one of the largest militaries in the world. With some of the systems being replaced only after decades of use, things would get ugly. Imagine if the main systems were still running Windows 98 or System 8. Not a pretty picture.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Eh , Windows , OS X and other non-crazy secure systems ( Linux without MAC through SELinux being enabled/configured or AppArmor ) stay pretty far away from the computers that help run one of the largest militaries in the world .
With some of the systems being replaced only after decades of use , things would get ugly .
Imagine if the main systems were still running Windows 98 or System 8 .
Not a pretty picture .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Eh, Windows , OS X and other non-crazy secure systems (Linux without MAC through SELinux being enabled/configured or AppArmor) stay pretty far away from the computers that help run one of the largest militaries in the world.
With some of the systems being replaced only after decades of use, things would get ugly.
Imagine if the main systems were still running Windows 98 or System 8.
Not a pretty picture.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29891109</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29894255</id>
	<title>Oh Jesus</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256721780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The tags speak volumes. Where are the *BSD mascots? Of course, OSS automatically means nothing but Linux. One OS to rule them all, eh? And fuck you in advance for your comment about Linux being a kernel, not an OS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The tags speak volumes .
Where are the * BSD mascots ?
Of course , OSS automatically means nothing but Linux .
One OS to rule them all , eh ?
And fuck you in advance for your comment about Linux being a kernel , not an OS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The tags speak volumes.
Where are the *BSD mascots?
Of course, OSS automatically means nothing but Linux.
One OS to rule them all, eh?
And fuck you in advance for your comment about Linux being a kernel, not an OS.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29891773</id>
	<title>Re: This is very even</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256650140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft products don't cut it with the interoperability.</p><p>Take a look at SharePoint for instances,  It's painful to move data in and out.  Sure there is the SDK, PowerShell, and good old manual labor.<br>But these products are sub-par. The SDK was written by what looks in the amount of 50 people who all had different ideas on proper coding.<br>PowerShell isn't even close to the usability as vbscript.   Who ever heard of a function that returned the entire transaction, database table, and all the output feedback along the way.</p><p>By the way, forget coding for SharePoint on a workstation, you basically only code on a Windows SharePoint Services or MOSS server.  Sure you can use Virtual Machines but forget that when you are<br>paying for per seat licenses.  Got to be legit.</p><p>Another thing is that Microsoft makes everything seem like a risk.  Global Unique Identifiers are on everything.<br>You have to activate your copy of Sh(it)arePoint Designer, Visual Studio[Torpedo].<br>Intellisense sometimes is missing things.  It makes you dumb as you come to rely on it.  Team Studio costs too much and is more complicated than CVS.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net was a bad Idea.  Ever notice it takes approximately 15 seconds to spool up an asp.net application.<br>That compounded with the 30 seconds you have to wait for your data to be retrieved from SQL Server and shoved in<br>a datagrid's Session State.  Shouldn't there be automated paging by now?</p><p>C# is basically just becoming a python rip off.</p><p>Remember LINQ?  2XML 2SQL   If you tried to use the XML you noticed it wasn't exactly finished.  "namespaces?"</p><p>After a while the Xbox 360 will require you to go online to validate you are playing the game you are playing.<br>The games will be registered to you via a 32bit GUID that is randomly generated by the tool from Visual Studio.<br>Then you'll find out that at least 10 other people own your copy of Fears of War Unlimited.  You are a pirate and you 360 has been<br>deactivated.  Thats just where this hysteria is headed.  EA, you're just as bad.</p><p>The Department of Defense would do well to just go totally opensource.</p><p>Ubuntu clients, Redhat servers, skys the limit.</p><p>But here is the problem with that.  Redhat doesn't really want to attempt to compete in the desktop market.<br>They publicly stated this. This is BAD.  Because they have to.  They need too.<br>They have people capable of fixing the problems in components such as Xorg, the Kernel, and Gnome.<br>They have the capability to fork projects and put out decent alternatives.</p><p>Distributions act like they are Linux Prime the leader of the Great Linux.<br>But truly there is no one person Linux belongs too or you can go to to blame.<br>That's the best thing about it.  Nobody really owns it.  Nobody is going to come and put you jail for using it.<br>Nobody is going to force you to pay tax on it.</p><p>Ubuntu has a good Desktop product.  But I'm not sure about the caliber of their employees.<br>I'm not sure they can continue to drag Debian along.</p><p>In an enterprise environment you need things to work.  That's the problem with open source.<br>Companies aren't being forced to invest in the product.  Sony should make sure the kernel supports it's laptops.<br>Intel should insure there are sufficient drivers for its latest video cards, network cards, and modems.</p><p>Another problem is Microsoft will slip in one of their MVP salesman and your management get big eyes about the possibilities.</p><p>But whatever.  I don't care.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft products do n't cut it with the interoperability.Take a look at SharePoint for instances , It 's painful to move data in and out .
Sure there is the SDK , PowerShell , and good old manual labor.But these products are sub-par .
The SDK was written by what looks in the amount of 50 people who all had different ideas on proper coding.PowerShell is n't even close to the usability as vbscript .
Who ever heard of a function that returned the entire transaction , database table , and all the output feedback along the way.By the way , forget coding for SharePoint on a workstation , you basically only code on a Windows SharePoint Services or MOSS server .
Sure you can use Virtual Machines but forget that when you arepaying for per seat licenses .
Got to be legit.Another thing is that Microsoft makes everything seem like a risk .
Global Unique Identifiers are on everything.You have to activate your copy of Sh ( it ) arePoint Designer , Visual Studio [ Torpedo ] .Intellisense sometimes is missing things .
It makes you dumb as you come to rely on it .
Team Studio costs too much and is more complicated than CVS .
.Net was a bad Idea .
Ever notice it takes approximately 15 seconds to spool up an asp.net application.That compounded with the 30 seconds you have to wait for your data to be retrieved from SQL Server and shoved ina datagrid 's Session State .
Should n't there be automated paging by now ? C # is basically just becoming a python rip off.Remember LINQ ?
2XML 2SQL If you tried to use the XML you noticed it was n't exactly finished .
" namespaces ? " After a while the Xbox 360 will require you to go online to validate you are playing the game you are playing.The games will be registered to you via a 32bit GUID that is randomly generated by the tool from Visual Studio.Then you 'll find out that at least 10 other people own your copy of Fears of War Unlimited .
You are a pirate and you 360 has beendeactivated .
Thats just where this hysteria is headed .
EA , you 're just as bad.The Department of Defense would do well to just go totally opensource.Ubuntu clients , Redhat servers , skys the limit.But here is the problem with that .
Redhat does n't really want to attempt to compete in the desktop market.They publicly stated this .
This is BAD .
Because they have to .
They need too.They have people capable of fixing the problems in components such as Xorg , the Kernel , and Gnome.They have the capability to fork projects and put out decent alternatives.Distributions act like they are Linux Prime the leader of the Great Linux.But truly there is no one person Linux belongs too or you can go to to blame.That 's the best thing about it .
Nobody really owns it .
Nobody is going to come and put you jail for using it.Nobody is going to force you to pay tax on it.Ubuntu has a good Desktop product .
But I 'm not sure about the caliber of their employees.I 'm not sure they can continue to drag Debian along.In an enterprise environment you need things to work .
That 's the problem with open source.Companies are n't being forced to invest in the product .
Sony should make sure the kernel supports it 's laptops.Intel should insure there are sufficient drivers for its latest video cards , network cards , and modems.Another problem is Microsoft will slip in one of their MVP salesman and your management get big eyes about the possibilities.But whatever .
I do n't care .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft products don't cut it with the interoperability.Take a look at SharePoint for instances,  It's painful to move data in and out.
Sure there is the SDK, PowerShell, and good old manual labor.But these products are sub-par.
The SDK was written by what looks in the amount of 50 people who all had different ideas on proper coding.PowerShell isn't even close to the usability as vbscript.
Who ever heard of a function that returned the entire transaction, database table, and all the output feedback along the way.By the way, forget coding for SharePoint on a workstation, you basically only code on a Windows SharePoint Services or MOSS server.
Sure you can use Virtual Machines but forget that when you arepaying for per seat licenses.
Got to be legit.Another thing is that Microsoft makes everything seem like a risk.
Global Unique Identifiers are on everything.You have to activate your copy of Sh(it)arePoint Designer, Visual Studio[Torpedo].Intellisense sometimes is missing things.
It makes you dumb as you come to rely on it.
Team Studio costs too much and is more complicated than CVS.
.Net was a bad Idea.
Ever notice it takes approximately 15 seconds to spool up an asp.net application.That compounded with the 30 seconds you have to wait for your data to be retrieved from SQL Server and shoved ina datagrid's Session State.
Shouldn't there be automated paging by now?C# is basically just becoming a python rip off.Remember LINQ?
2XML 2SQL   If you tried to use the XML you noticed it wasn't exactly finished.
"namespaces?"After a while the Xbox 360 will require you to go online to validate you are playing the game you are playing.The games will be registered to you via a 32bit GUID that is randomly generated by the tool from Visual Studio.Then you'll find out that at least 10 other people own your copy of Fears of War Unlimited.
You are a pirate and you 360 has beendeactivated.
Thats just where this hysteria is headed.
EA, you're just as bad.The Department of Defense would do well to just go totally opensource.Ubuntu clients, Redhat servers, skys the limit.But here is the problem with that.
Redhat doesn't really want to attempt to compete in the desktop market.They publicly stated this.
This is BAD.
Because they have to.
They need too.They have people capable of fixing the problems in components such as Xorg, the Kernel, and Gnome.They have the capability to fork projects and put out decent alternatives.Distributions act like they are Linux Prime the leader of the Great Linux.But truly there is no one person Linux belongs too or you can go to to blame.That's the best thing about it.
Nobody really owns it.
Nobody is going to come and put you jail for using it.Nobody is going to force you to pay tax on it.Ubuntu has a good Desktop product.
But I'm not sure about the caliber of their employees.I'm not sure they can continue to drag Debian along.In an enterprise environment you need things to work.
That's the problem with open source.Companies aren't being forced to invest in the product.
Sony should make sure the kernel supports it's laptops.Intel should insure there are sufficient drivers for its latest video cards, network cards, and modems.Another problem is Microsoft will slip in one of their MVP salesman and your management get big eyes about the possibilities.But whatever.
I don't care.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29890819</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29891109</id>
	<title>Crash!</title>
	<author>hrimhari</author>
	<datestamp>1256646120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And thus another chair is thrown in Redmond.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And thus another chair is thrown in Redmond .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And thus another chair is thrown in Redmond.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29893207</id>
	<title>Terrible news, we were using it already</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256664120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now the company corporate folks I work for has open source on its radar.. Now we have FOSS (Free Open Source Softwaree) training about all the viral open source licenses and to upgrade or install anything we needs a subject matter expert.  We have a unix gnu utility that needs upgrading, can't do it, now we need sign of.</p><p>
&nbsp; Never mind that we have Unix guru and were using perl/gcc mpi and a bunch of other software installed.  Open Office was a usefull tool on our Unix machines,  some of those perl modules helped us write custom code documentors, no more.  we'll be waiting a couple years for an upgrade..  Closed network means it all had to go through IT anyway.</p><p>sigh......</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now the company corporate folks I work for has open source on its radar.. Now we have FOSS ( Free Open Source Softwaree ) training about all the viral open source licenses and to upgrade or install anything we needs a subject matter expert .
We have a unix gnu utility that needs upgrading , ca n't do it , now we need sign of .
  Never mind that we have Unix guru and were using perl/gcc mpi and a bunch of other software installed .
Open Office was a usefull tool on our Unix machines , some of those perl modules helped us write custom code documentors , no more .
we 'll be waiting a couple years for an upgrade.. Closed network means it all had to go through IT anyway.sigh..... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now the company corporate folks I work for has open source on its radar.. Now we have FOSS (Free Open Source Softwaree) training about all the viral open source licenses and to upgrade or install anything we needs a subject matter expert.
We have a unix gnu utility that needs upgrading, can't do it, now we need sign of.
  Never mind that we have Unix guru and were using perl/gcc mpi and a bunch of other software installed.
Open Office was a usefull tool on our Unix machines,  some of those perl modules helped us write custom code documentors, no more.
we'll be waiting a couple years for an upgrade..  Closed network means it all had to go through IT anyway.sigh......</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29891007</id>
	<title>Re:But ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256645640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>How can the DoD release software under a copyleft license when the federal government is incapable of holding copyrights in the first place?</p></div></blockquote><p>Come on! I like the GPL as much as any other free-software-loving-commie but even I don't think OSS==copyleft. Public domain, along with BSD and MIT type licenses are recognized as open source (heck, software released under them is even recognized as "free" by the free software crowd).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How can the DoD release software under a copyleft license when the federal government is incapable of holding copyrights in the first place ? Come on !
I like the GPL as much as any other free-software-loving-commie but even I do n't think OSS = = copyleft .
Public domain , along with BSD and MIT type licenses are recognized as open source ( heck , software released under them is even recognized as " free " by the free software crowd ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How can the DoD release software under a copyleft license when the federal government is incapable of holding copyrights in the first place?Come on!
I like the GPL as much as any other free-software-loving-commie but even I don't think OSS==copyleft.
Public domain, along with BSD and MIT type licenses are recognized as open source (heck, software released under them is even recognized as "free" by the free software crowd).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29890887</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29890927</id>
	<title>Re:This is very odd...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256645280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You shouldn't.  The fact that you are alive at all is in large part thanks to government acting intelligently, or do you want to leave things like fire, ambulance, and general infrastructure to the likes of Enron, Microsoft and Halliburton?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You should n't .
The fact that you are alive at all is in large part thanks to government acting intelligently , or do you want to leave things like fire , ambulance , and general infrastructure to the likes of Enron , Microsoft and Halliburton ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You shouldn't.
The fact that you are alive at all is in large part thanks to government acting intelligently, or do you want to leave things like fire, ambulance, and general infrastructure to the likes of Enron, Microsoft and Halliburton?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29890819</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29892609</id>
	<title>Re:there's a few useful bits of software already</title>
	<author>lent</author>
	<datestamp>1256657700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In another instance,</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Nicholas Harbour, who at the time was working for the Department of Defense Computer Forensics Lab (<a href="http://www.dc3.mil/dcfl/dcflMission.php" title="dc3.mil" rel="nofollow">DCFL</a> [dc3.mil])</p></div><p>  wrote a loving modified <a href="http://wiki.linuxquestions.org/wiki/Dd" title="linuxquestions.org" rel="nofollow">dd</a> [linuxquestions.org] that writes to <b>multiple files <i>and</i> streams to multiple programs</b> at the same time. The program, <a href="http://dcfldd.sourceforge.net/" title="sourceforge.net" rel="nofollow">dcfldd</a> [sourceforge.net],  also introduces the sorely missed <b>VERIFY</b> operation, and even <b>block-by-block</b> hashes,  ( <a href="http://linux.die.net/man/1/dcfldd" title="die.net" rel="nofollow">dcfldd Man page</a> [die.net])</p><p>Maybe someone will combine this with <a href="http://www.garloff.de/kurt/linux/ddrescue/" title="garloff.de" rel="nofollow">dd\_rescue</a> [garloff.de], <a href="http://www.gnu.org/software/ddrescue/manual/ddrescue\_manual.html" title="gnu.org" rel="nofollow">ddrescue</a> [gnu.org] and <a href="http://www.kalysto.org/utilities/dd\_rhelp/index.en.html" title="kalysto.org" rel="nofollow">dd\_rhelp</a> [kalysto.org] to make the ultimate <a href="http://www.roesler-ac.de/wolfram/acro/credits.htm#1" title="roesler-ac.de" rel="nofollow">"Convert and Copy"</a> [roesler-ac.de] utility<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p><p>Ah and I can dream of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stream\_Control\_Transmission\_Protocol" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">SCTP support</a> [wikipedia.org] too<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In another instance,Nicholas Harbour , who at the time was working for the Department of Defense Computer Forensics Lab ( DCFL [ dc3.mil ] ) wrote a loving modified dd [ linuxquestions.org ] that writes to multiple files and streams to multiple programs at the same time .
The program , dcfldd [ sourceforge.net ] , also introduces the sorely missed VERIFY operation , and even block-by-block hashes , ( dcfldd Man page [ die.net ] ) Maybe someone will combine this with dd \ _rescue [ garloff.de ] , ddrescue [ gnu.org ] and dd \ _rhelp [ kalysto.org ] to make the ultimate " Convert and Copy " [ roesler-ac.de ] utility : - ) Ah and I can dream of SCTP support [ wikipedia.org ] too : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In another instance,Nicholas Harbour, who at the time was working for the Department of Defense Computer Forensics Lab (DCFL [dc3.mil])  wrote a loving modified dd [linuxquestions.org] that writes to multiple files and streams to multiple programs at the same time.
The program, dcfldd [sourceforge.net],  also introduces the sorely missed VERIFY operation, and even block-by-block hashes,  ( dcfldd Man page [die.net])Maybe someone will combine this with dd\_rescue [garloff.de], ddrescue [gnu.org] and dd\_rhelp [kalysto.org] to make the ultimate "Convert and Copy" [roesler-ac.de] utility :-)Ah and I can dream of SCTP support [wikipedia.org] too :-)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29891001</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29898509</id>
	<title>Re:Crash!</title>
	<author>hrimhari</author>
	<datestamp>1256749560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thank you for the informative post, Steve ; )</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thank you for the informative post , Steve ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thank you for the informative post, Steve ; )</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29891431</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29890819</id>
	<title>This is very odd...</title>
	<author>Zarf</author>
	<datestamp>1256644740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the government is acting intelligently. I feel strange.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the government is acting intelligently .
I feel strange .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the government is acting intelligently.
I feel strange.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29895827</id>
	<title>Some points on being in a cave for 25 years</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256738460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Most government program/project managers are very slow to try new things like OSS.</p></div><p>
If you think FOSS is new, either your 'recreational' activities with Bill and Steve at Microsoft headquarters have left you brain damaged or you have been in a cave for at least 25 years.  The Internet, a DARPA project, has been FOSS since before the term 'FOSS' was available.  </p><p>
You're right about the slow but wrong about the new.  The bizarre part is that slow-moving, incompetent managers everywhere are willing to go far over budget and don't even blink at signing double-overtime to deal with a self-inflicted Microsoft problem.  But not willing to spend a dime to roll back to the FOSS software they had which worked without a hitch and needed only negligible maintenance.  I can't find a description in DSM-IV, but there has to be a special name for that.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most government program/project managers are very slow to try new things like OSS .
If you think FOSS is new , either your 'recreational ' activities with Bill and Steve at Microsoft headquarters have left you brain damaged or you have been in a cave for at least 25 years .
The Internet , a DARPA project , has been FOSS since before the term 'FOSS ' was available .
You 're right about the slow but wrong about the new .
The bizarre part is that slow-moving , incompetent managers everywhere are willing to go far over budget and do n't even blink at signing double-overtime to deal with a self-inflicted Microsoft problem .
But not willing to spend a dime to roll back to the FOSS software they had which worked without a hitch and needed only negligible maintenance .
I ca n't find a description in DSM-IV , but there has to be a special name for that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most government program/project managers are very slow to try new things like OSS.
If you think FOSS is new, either your 'recreational' activities with Bill and Steve at Microsoft headquarters have left you brain damaged or you have been in a cave for at least 25 years.
The Internet, a DARPA project, has been FOSS since before the term 'FOSS' was available.
You're right about the slow but wrong about the new.
The bizarre part is that slow-moving, incompetent managers everywhere are willing to go far over budget and don't even blink at signing double-overtime to deal with a self-inflicted Microsoft problem.
But not willing to spend a dime to roll back to the FOSS software they had which worked without a hitch and needed only negligible maintenance.
I can't find a description in DSM-IV, but there has to be a special name for that.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29892395</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29897363</id>
	<title>Re:This is very odd...</title>
	<author>vtcodger</author>
	<datestamp>1256744940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree with you.  But I should point out that like millions of other folks in small town/rural America, both my fire protection and ambulance service are provided by volunteer organizations.  The municipal government does do police and roads, but smaller towns hire out their policing from the state government (Unlike most of the country counties don't amount to much in New England).  I suppose they could rent cops from Brinks et. al. although I for one much prefer my police not be models of the free enterprise system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with you .
But I should point out that like millions of other folks in small town/rural America , both my fire protection and ambulance service are provided by volunteer organizations .
The municipal government does do police and roads , but smaller towns hire out their policing from the state government ( Unlike most of the country counties do n't amount to much in New England ) .
I suppose they could rent cops from Brinks et .
al. although I for one much prefer my police not be models of the free enterprise system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with you.
But I should point out that like millions of other folks in small town/rural America, both my fire protection and ambulance service are provided by volunteer organizations.
The municipal government does do police and roads, but smaller towns hire out their policing from the state government (Unlike most of the country counties don't amount to much in New England).
I suppose they could rent cops from Brinks et.
al. although I for one much prefer my police not be models of the free enterprise system.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29890927</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29896913</id>
	<title>Re:Hmm, for us non-Americans...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256743140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Petition to have your military use OSS also. I'm sure you'll thank the Americans who contribute to OSS when your government and military starts using OSS.<br><br>I don't think our (not American) military is anywhere close....</htmltext>
<tokenext>Petition to have your military use OSS also .
I 'm sure you 'll thank the Americans who contribute to OSS when your government and military starts using OSS.I do n't think our ( not American ) military is anywhere close... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Petition to have your military use OSS also.
I'm sure you'll thank the Americans who contribute to OSS when your government and military starts using OSS.I don't think our (not American) military is anywhere close....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29893421</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29891307</id>
	<title>Re:But ...</title>
	<author>ascari</author>
	<datestamp>1256647380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Most open source licenses (such as GPL) have little to do with copyright, and more to do with distribution. For example from a GPL perspective it matters less who holds the copy right of a product than the fact that anyone who makes modifications to the product has to license the modifications under the same license and make the source code available.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most open source licenses ( such as GPL ) have little to do with copyright , and more to do with distribution .
For example from a GPL perspective it matters less who holds the copy right of a product than the fact that anyone who makes modifications to the product has to license the modifications under the same license and make the source code available .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most open source licenses (such as GPL) have little to do with copyright, and more to do with distribution.
For example from a GPL perspective it matters less who holds the copy right of a product than the fact that anyone who makes modifications to the product has to license the modifications under the same license and make the source code available.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29890887</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29892973</id>
	<title>ABOUT TIME.  Too many confused auditors in the DoD</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256661000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I had been having ongoing arguments with auditors and DoD scanners about Open Source Software versus "freeware" - it's free, so that means it's Freeware - right?  Finally, Daniel Risacher from the "Defense Department's Office of the Chief Information Officer" <a href="http://gcn.com/articles/2008/10/08/pentagon-open-source-good-to-go.aspx" title="gcn.com">made this announcement.</a> [gcn.com]</p><p>Reading that, I got all excited...and waited patiently.  For a bit.  Finally, come April, I emailed him directly with this question:</p><p><i>At a RedHat conference on Oct8, 2008, you made a comment that the DoD would further clarify that OSS is not the same as Freeware/ Shareware, for those who are still confused about the subject.  We are currently undergoing an audit, and are being told that we can't use various products because they are "shareware" - specifically, mysql was on the hitlist.  Discontinuing use of mysql would be an engineering nightmare for us, esp since anything else would also be "freeware" according to the auditors.</i></p><p><i>Of course, 8500.2 says that we can't use shareware because we don't have access to the source code, and we obviously have access to the code of open source products.  I can't find the memo that you mentioned would be coming soon - has it been released?</i></p><p>To which he responded:</p><p><i>From: Daniel Risacher ((redacted))<br>Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 3:54 PM<br>To: Brian LaMere<br>Subject: Re: OSS in DoD?<br>The memo is essentially finished, but stuck in an near-endless do-loop of executive-level staffing.<br>Forward the names of any gov't personnel who are giving you trouble to my work email: ((redacted)), and I'll try to talk to them.</i></p><p>Wow...that was back in April.  Things sure do move fast around there<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p><p>There are countless documents that say so many different things, compounded by the fact that there are a multitude of auditors who have been trained that "Open Source" is "Freeware."  And since "Freeware" is disallowed according to 8500.2, they then decide that "Open Source" is too.  Nevermind that the Linux kernel is Open Source, no - they would pick and choose randomly which software we could and couldn't use.  On a whim they'd suddenly decide mysql was no longer ok, no matter what evidence I could provide otherwise.</p><p>G-d, how I miss that circus.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I had been having ongoing arguments with auditors and DoD scanners about Open Source Software versus " freeware " - it 's free , so that means it 's Freeware - right ?
Finally , Daniel Risacher from the " Defense Department 's Office of the Chief Information Officer " made this announcement .
[ gcn.com ] Reading that , I got all excited...and waited patiently .
For a bit .
Finally , come April , I emailed him directly with this question : At a RedHat conference on Oct8 , 2008 , you made a comment that the DoD would further clarify that OSS is not the same as Freeware/ Shareware , for those who are still confused about the subject .
We are currently undergoing an audit , and are being told that we ca n't use various products because they are " shareware " - specifically , mysql was on the hitlist .
Discontinuing use of mysql would be an engineering nightmare for us , esp since anything else would also be " freeware " according to the auditors.Of course , 8500.2 says that we ca n't use shareware because we do n't have access to the source code , and we obviously have access to the code of open source products .
I ca n't find the memo that you mentioned would be coming soon - has it been released ? To which he responded : From : Daniel Risacher ( ( redacted ) ) Sent : Monday , April 06 , 2009 3 : 54 PMTo : Brian LaMereSubject : Re : OSS in DoD ? The memo is essentially finished , but stuck in an near-endless do-loop of executive-level staffing.Forward the names of any gov't personnel who are giving you trouble to my work email : ( ( redacted ) ) , and I 'll try to talk to them.Wow...that was back in April .
Things sure do move fast around there ; ) There are countless documents that say so many different things , compounded by the fact that there are a multitude of auditors who have been trained that " Open Source " is " Freeware .
" And since " Freeware " is disallowed according to 8500.2 , they then decide that " Open Source " is too .
Nevermind that the Linux kernel is Open Source , no - they would pick and choose randomly which software we could and could n't use .
On a whim they 'd suddenly decide mysql was no longer ok , no matter what evidence I could provide otherwise.G-d , how I miss that circus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had been having ongoing arguments with auditors and DoD scanners about Open Source Software versus "freeware" - it's free, so that means it's Freeware - right?
Finally, Daniel Risacher from the "Defense Department's Office of the Chief Information Officer" made this announcement.
[gcn.com]Reading that, I got all excited...and waited patiently.
For a bit.
Finally, come April, I emailed him directly with this question:At a RedHat conference on Oct8, 2008, you made a comment that the DoD would further clarify that OSS is not the same as Freeware/ Shareware, for those who are still confused about the subject.
We are currently undergoing an audit, and are being told that we can't use various products because they are "shareware" - specifically, mysql was on the hitlist.
Discontinuing use of mysql would be an engineering nightmare for us, esp since anything else would also be "freeware" according to the auditors.Of course, 8500.2 says that we can't use shareware because we don't have access to the source code, and we obviously have access to the code of open source products.
I can't find the memo that you mentioned would be coming soon - has it been released?To which he responded:From: Daniel Risacher ((redacted))Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 3:54 PMTo: Brian LaMereSubject: Re: OSS in DoD?The memo is essentially finished, but stuck in an near-endless do-loop of executive-level staffing.Forward the names of any gov't personnel who are giving you trouble to my work email: ((redacted)), and I'll try to talk to them.Wow...that was back in April.
Things sure do move fast around there ;)There are countless documents that say so many different things, compounded by the fact that there are a multitude of auditors who have been trained that "Open Source" is "Freeware.
"  And since "Freeware" is disallowed according to 8500.2, they then decide that "Open Source" is too.
Nevermind that the Linux kernel is Open Source, no - they would pick and choose randomly which software we could and couldn't use.
On a whim they'd suddenly decide mysql was no longer ok, no matter what evidence I could provide otherwise.G-d, how I miss that circus.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29892607</id>
	<title>Snort/SourceFire</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256657640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Totally worth the $10K per box for Sourcefire so you don't have to get your hands dirty with any of that icky open source Snort garbage.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Totally worth the $ 10K per box for Sourcefire so you do n't have to get your hands dirty with any of that icky open source Snort garbage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Totally worth the $10K per box for Sourcefire so you don't have to get your hands dirty with any of that icky open source Snort garbage.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29891111</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29892643</id>
	<title>C'mon Steve</title>
	<author>symbolset</author>
	<datestamp>1256657880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We think it's funny.  We know you don't think it's funny.  That's part of why it's funny. You want to fucking kill google, and all you can do is thrash furniture.  Your team can't even keep a fucking SideKick working and you want to take on Android.  What is it, a decade of WiMo, and 6.5 is the best you can do?
</p><p>Get over it.  You're Wile E. Coyote and Google is your Roadrunner.  That's some funny shit there.  If they call their app store ACME that would complete the joke.  Somebody get Sergey on the horn.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We think it 's funny .
We know you do n't think it 's funny .
That 's part of why it 's funny .
You want to fucking kill google , and all you can do is thrash furniture .
Your team ca n't even keep a fucking SideKick working and you want to take on Android .
What is it , a decade of WiMo , and 6.5 is the best you can do ?
Get over it .
You 're Wile E. Coyote and Google is your Roadrunner .
That 's some funny shit there .
If they call their app store ACME that would complete the joke .
Somebody get Sergey on the horn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We think it's funny.
We know you don't think it's funny.
That's part of why it's funny.
You want to fucking kill google, and all you can do is thrash furniture.
Your team can't even keep a fucking SideKick working and you want to take on Android.
What is it, a decade of WiMo, and 6.5 is the best you can do?
Get over it.
You're Wile E. Coyote and Google is your Roadrunner.
That's some funny shit there.
If they call their app store ACME that would complete the joke.
Somebody get Sergey on the horn.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29891431</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29891421</id>
	<title>Shameless plug</title>
	<author>dremspider</author>
	<datestamp>1256647980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wrote about this a little while ago on why the federal government needs to be using Open Source.

<a href="http://www.dremspider.net/?p=15" title="dremspider.net" rel="nofollow">http://www.dremspider.net/?p=15</a> [dremspider.net]

This is what I have seen as a federal contractor.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wrote about this a little while ago on why the federal government needs to be using Open Source .
http : //www.dremspider.net/ ? p = 15 [ dremspider.net ] This is what I have seen as a federal contractor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wrote about this a little while ago on why the federal government needs to be using Open Source.
http://www.dremspider.net/?p=15 [dremspider.net]

This is what I have seen as a federal contractor.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29890817</id>
	<title>hmm military using OSS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256644740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>gives a new meaning to terms such as "fatal exception" and "kernel panic"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>gives a new meaning to terms such as " fatal exception " and " kernel panic "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>gives a new meaning to terms such as "fatal exception" and "kernel panic"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29892833</id>
	<title>Re: This is very even</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256659320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I like how you made up half your story.  Like the bit about everything needing activation.  You know, no paid Microsoft developer tools need activation (developers may be the only group Microsoft treats relatively decently, but I digress).</p><p>Your stuff about ASP.NET is a lie too.  Or rather, it takes as long to spin up the ASP.NET runtime as the Java or ColdFusion runtimes.  Of course, ASP.NET isn't Open Source so clearly it's not good enough for you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I like how you made up half your story .
Like the bit about everything needing activation .
You know , no paid Microsoft developer tools need activation ( developers may be the only group Microsoft treats relatively decently , but I digress ) .Your stuff about ASP.NET is a lie too .
Or rather , it takes as long to spin up the ASP.NET runtime as the Java or ColdFusion runtimes .
Of course , ASP.NET is n't Open Source so clearly it 's not good enough for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like how you made up half your story.
Like the bit about everything needing activation.
You know, no paid Microsoft developer tools need activation (developers may be the only group Microsoft treats relatively decently, but I digress).Your stuff about ASP.NET is a lie too.
Or rather, it takes as long to spin up the ASP.NET runtime as the Java or ColdFusion runtimes.
Of course, ASP.NET isn't Open Source so clearly it's not good enough for you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29891773</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29890953</id>
	<title>Re:But ...</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1256645400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>How can the DoD release software under a copyleft license when the federal government is incapable of holding copyrights in the first place?</p></div></blockquote><p>Government agencies are required, IIRC, to respect* private copyrights, and releasing software that is derivative of private works that are under a copyleft license under the same license might be consistent with (and might even be necessary, if the software is released at all, to comply with) those regulations.</p><p>* As I understand, its not bound in the same way a private party is, but is restricted under the law in what it can do with copyrighted material without the permission of the copyright holder.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How can the DoD release software under a copyleft license when the federal government is incapable of holding copyrights in the first place ? Government agencies are required , IIRC , to respect * private copyrights , and releasing software that is derivative of private works that are under a copyleft license under the same license might be consistent with ( and might even be necessary , if the software is released at all , to comply with ) those regulations .
* As I understand , its not bound in the same way a private party is , but is restricted under the law in what it can do with copyrighted material without the permission of the copyright holder .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How can the DoD release software under a copyleft license when the federal government is incapable of holding copyrights in the first place?Government agencies are required, IIRC, to respect* private copyrights, and releasing software that is derivative of private works that are under a copyleft license under the same license might be consistent with (and might even be necessary, if the software is released at all, to comply with) those regulations.
* As I understand, its not bound in the same way a private party is, but is restricted under the law in what it can do with copyrighted material without the permission of the copyright holder.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29890887</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29894449</id>
	<title>Re:Some Points on the Memo</title>
	<author>dkf</author>
	<datestamp>1256724780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Over beers, one of the people involved with its writing told the story of being asked whether the memo would be out before Thanksgiving and responding, "Without a doubt."  That was in 2007!!</p></div><p>So, which Thanksgiving were you thinking he was referring to?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Over beers , one of the people involved with its writing told the story of being asked whether the memo would be out before Thanksgiving and responding , " Without a doubt .
" That was in 2007 !
! So , which Thanksgiving were you thinking he was referring to ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Over beers, one of the people involved with its writing told the story of being asked whether the memo would be out before Thanksgiving and responding, "Without a doubt.
"  That was in 2007!
!So, which Thanksgiving were you thinking he was referring to?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29892395</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29892859</id>
	<title>Re:Hmm...not so sure...</title>
	<author>symbolset</author>
	<datestamp>1256659620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's a template for a C or C++ program:</p><blockquote><div><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr><tt>//Copyright symbolset (c) 2009<br>//License: GPL 2.0 or any later version. Use and share it all you want - but if you publish executables compiled from derived code you have to publish the source under this license.<br>int main(int argc, char **argv) {<br>//This comment is unique to Symbolset's GPL Code Template.<br>}</tt></p></div> </blockquote><p>Now any government agency can take that template, expand it to do anything they want, and it's GPL rather than public domain.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's a template for a C or C + + program : //Copyright symbolset ( c ) 2009//License : GPL 2.0 or any later version .
Use and share it all you want - but if you publish executables compiled from derived code you have to publish the source under this license.int main ( int argc , char * * argv ) { //This comment is unique to Symbolset 's GPL Code Template .
} Now any government agency can take that template , expand it to do anything they want , and it 's GPL rather than public domain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's a template for a C or C++ program: //Copyright symbolset (c) 2009//License: GPL 2.0 or any later version.
Use and share it all you want - but if you publish executables compiled from derived code you have to publish the source under this license.int main(int argc, char **argv) {//This comment is unique to Symbolset's GPL Code Template.
} Now any government agency can take that template, expand it to do anything they want, and it's GPL rather than public domain.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29891627</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29894493</id>
	<title>Re:Crash!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256725680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So the key to getting your score up seems to be to take a jab at Microsoft.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>Booo<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Microsoft<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... you suck<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... stop ripping off innovators like Google, who invented the search engine, or Apple who invented the GUI.  Boooo.  You should keep making Windows 3.11, everything else is you stealing from the poor, innocent, for-public-good companies such as Apple and Google.  Steve Jobs is starving, just look at him (too soon?), he will have to get his next liver from some prison in a country with questionable practices.  How dare you Microsoft, you should be ashamed.</p><p>I will now go back to my IBM idol, and remember the good times, before Microsoft.  When computers were free, and ran on love and kisses.  Before your greed made them cheap enough for average joe to afford, back than they meant something, they were a commodity, now<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... ha<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... the poor can afford them.  How dare you take away my elitism.</p><p>Booo.  Go back to making Basic, you bastards.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So the key to getting your score up seems to be to take a jab at Microsoft .
...Booo ... Microsoft ... you suck ... stop ripping off innovators like Google , who invented the search engine , or Apple who invented the GUI .
Boooo. You should keep making Windows 3.11 , everything else is you stealing from the poor , innocent , for-public-good companies such as Apple and Google .
Steve Jobs is starving , just look at him ( too soon ?
) , he will have to get his next liver from some prison in a country with questionable practices .
How dare you Microsoft , you should be ashamed.I will now go back to my IBM idol , and remember the good times , before Microsoft .
When computers were free , and ran on love and kisses .
Before your greed made them cheap enough for average joe to afford , back than they meant something , they were a commodity , now ... ha ... the poor can afford them .
How dare you take away my elitism.Booo .
Go back to making Basic , you bastards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So the key to getting your score up seems to be to take a jab at Microsoft.
...Booo ... Microsoft ... you suck ... stop ripping off innovators like Google, who invented the search engine, or Apple who invented the GUI.
Boooo.  You should keep making Windows 3.11, everything else is you stealing from the poor, innocent, for-public-good companies such as Apple and Google.
Steve Jobs is starving, just look at him (too soon?
), he will have to get his next liver from some prison in a country with questionable practices.
How dare you Microsoft, you should be ashamed.I will now go back to my IBM idol, and remember the good times, before Microsoft.
When computers were free, and ran on love and kisses.
Before your greed made them cheap enough for average joe to afford, back than they meant something, they were a commodity, now ... ha ... the poor can afford them.
How dare you take away my elitism.Booo.
Go back to making Basic, you bastards.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29892555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29891627</id>
	<title>Hmm...not so sure...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256649300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While I'm all in favor of OSS making it into DoD, the wording of the memo puts DoD on shaky ground.</p><p>In particular, 2(e) suggests that you can release modified OSS software to a government entity and you won't have to release the source code. If it's GNU GPL software, then you can release the modified binary to other entities within your organization, but you have to release source code to them (not a problem) and you cannot restrict their further distribution of source code or binary (a big problem). GNU GPL v3 uses the words "anyone who comes into possession of a copy."</p><p>2(g) suggests that DoD staff can release software as open source. DoD staff, as US government agents, cannot claim copyright over their work. Most OSS licences (e.g. BSD, GPL) basically say "I am the copyright owner, and I hereby allow you to do stuff." Contractors developing software on a DoD contract may (in certain circumstances) be in a position to say that, and thus be able to release their software as OSS. Software developed by DoD staff themselves, if it is to be released as OSS, needs to be released under a very carefully worded license, which would by its nature be incompatible with GNU GPL and many other licenses. Thus for example for DoD staff to modify GNU GPL licensed code, and release their modifications (necessarily under GNU GPL) raises all sorts of legal problems.</p><p>M$ have lobbied DoD heavily in the past, against OSS, on just these grounds. I can't think why they wouldn't do so again. This is not something that can be solved with a memo, even from DoD CIO. We need legislative change to insulate DoD against lawsuits from M$ and other proprietary software vendors.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While I 'm all in favor of OSS making it into DoD , the wording of the memo puts DoD on shaky ground.In particular , 2 ( e ) suggests that you can release modified OSS software to a government entity and you wo n't have to release the source code .
If it 's GNU GPL software , then you can release the modified binary to other entities within your organization , but you have to release source code to them ( not a problem ) and you can not restrict their further distribution of source code or binary ( a big problem ) .
GNU GPL v3 uses the words " anyone who comes into possession of a copy .
" 2 ( g ) suggests that DoD staff can release software as open source .
DoD staff , as US government agents , can not claim copyright over their work .
Most OSS licences ( e.g .
BSD , GPL ) basically say " I am the copyright owner , and I hereby allow you to do stuff .
" Contractors developing software on a DoD contract may ( in certain circumstances ) be in a position to say that , and thus be able to release their software as OSS .
Software developed by DoD staff themselves , if it is to be released as OSS , needs to be released under a very carefully worded license , which would by its nature be incompatible with GNU GPL and many other licenses .
Thus for example for DoD staff to modify GNU GPL licensed code , and release their modifications ( necessarily under GNU GPL ) raises all sorts of legal problems.M $ have lobbied DoD heavily in the past , against OSS , on just these grounds .
I ca n't think why they would n't do so again .
This is not something that can be solved with a memo , even from DoD CIO .
We need legislative change to insulate DoD against lawsuits from M $ and other proprietary software vendors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I'm all in favor of OSS making it into DoD, the wording of the memo puts DoD on shaky ground.In particular, 2(e) suggests that you can release modified OSS software to a government entity and you won't have to release the source code.
If it's GNU GPL software, then you can release the modified binary to other entities within your organization, but you have to release source code to them (not a problem) and you cannot restrict their further distribution of source code or binary (a big problem).
GNU GPL v3 uses the words "anyone who comes into possession of a copy.
"2(g) suggests that DoD staff can release software as open source.
DoD staff, as US government agents, cannot claim copyright over their work.
Most OSS licences (e.g.
BSD, GPL) basically say "I am the copyright owner, and I hereby allow you to do stuff.
" Contractors developing software on a DoD contract may (in certain circumstances) be in a position to say that, and thus be able to release their software as OSS.
Software developed by DoD staff themselves, if it is to be released as OSS, needs to be released under a very carefully worded license, which would by its nature be incompatible with GNU GPL and many other licenses.
Thus for example for DoD staff to modify GNU GPL licensed code, and release their modifications (necessarily under GNU GPL) raises all sorts of legal problems.M$ have lobbied DoD heavily in the past, against OSS, on just these grounds.
I can't think why they wouldn't do so again.
This is not something that can be solved with a memo, even from DoD CIO.
We need legislative change to insulate DoD against lawsuits from M$ and other proprietary software vendors.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29893421</id>
	<title>Hmm, for us non-Americans...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256667480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I contribute to OSS projects I like to think of it as doing some work for the good of the global community. What I don't like to think of it as, is to work for a foreign military for no pay. Actually I think i rather have foreign military spend some more on programmers and have less over to spend on bombs and soliders.</p><p>Is there some alternative OSS license that don't allow the software to be used for military purposes?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I contribute to OSS projects I like to think of it as doing some work for the good of the global community .
What I do n't like to think of it as , is to work for a foreign military for no pay .
Actually I think i rather have foreign military spend some more on programmers and have less over to spend on bombs and soliders.Is there some alternative OSS license that do n't allow the software to be used for military purposes ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I contribute to OSS projects I like to think of it as doing some work for the good of the global community.
What I don't like to think of it as, is to work for a foreign military for no pay.
Actually I think i rather have foreign military spend some more on programmers and have less over to spend on bombs and soliders.Is there some alternative OSS license that don't allow the software to be used for military purposes?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29900457</id>
	<title>Re:Some Points on the Memo</title>
	<author>risacher</author>
	<datestamp>1256757660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It was 2008, not 2007.  Wennergren proposed the memo in April 2008.  I thought it would be out by Thanksgiving 2008, and I was only wrong by a year...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It was 2008 , not 2007 .
Wennergren proposed the memo in April 2008 .
I thought it would be out by Thanksgiving 2008 , and I was only wrong by a year.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was 2008, not 2007.
Wennergren proposed the memo in April 2008.
I thought it would be out by Thanksgiving 2008, and I was only wrong by a year...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29892395</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29893089</id>
	<title>Re:This is very odd...</title>
	<author>rob333</author>
	<datestamp>1256662500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not really; they've realized that a LONG time ago. SELinux is basically an NSA creation, and was the first implementation of mandatory access controls for Linux. As the DOD implements and requires a MAC system for obvious reasons on their essential systems, this brought using Linux into the realm of possibility way back in 2000.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not really ; they 've realized that a LONG time ago .
SELinux is basically an NSA creation , and was the first implementation of mandatory access controls for Linux .
As the DOD implements and requires a MAC system for obvious reasons on their essential systems , this brought using Linux into the realm of possibility way back in 2000 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not really; they've realized that a LONG time ago.
SELinux is basically an NSA creation, and was the first implementation of mandatory access controls for Linux.
As the DOD implements and requires a MAC system for obvious reasons on their essential systems, this brought using Linux into the realm of possibility way back in 2000.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29891085</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29893435</id>
	<title>Re: This is very even</title>
	<author>Nuno Sa</author>
	<datestamp>1256667660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe related to this in UK?<br>Windows for Warships:<br><a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/15/royal\_navy\_email\_virus\_outage/" title="theregister.co.uk" rel="nofollow">http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/15/royal\_navy\_email\_virus\_outage/</a> [theregister.co.uk]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe related to this in UK ? Windows for Warships : http : //www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/15/royal \ _navy \ _email \ _virus \ _outage/ [ theregister.co.uk ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe related to this in UK?Windows for Warships:http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/15/royal\_navy\_email\_virus\_outage/ [theregister.co.uk]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29891773</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29892285</id>
	<title>Re:But ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256654820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's about releasing source, not the license.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's about releasing source , not the license .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's about releasing source, not the license.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29890887</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29891385</id>
	<title>Re:Crash!</title>
	<author>Stupid McStupidson</author>
	<datestamp>1256647800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext> Open Source? In MY global thermo-nuclear war?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Open Source ?
In MY global thermo-nuclear war ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Open Source?
In MY global thermo-nuclear war?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29891109</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29891407</id>
	<title>Re:This is very odd...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256647920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The government has always acted in its own interests.  Perhaps they have realised that releasing software as OSS suits their purposes.</p></div><p> <b>People</b> have always acted in their own interests.  A good government (one that is of and by the people) acting in its own interest is acting in your interest as well.</p><p>Not saying this is always the case, but it does happen.  Using your money to develop software that is licensed for you to use freely is a good example.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The government has always acted in its own interests .
Perhaps they have realised that releasing software as OSS suits their purposes .
People have always acted in their own interests .
A good government ( one that is of and by the people ) acting in its own interest is acting in your interest as well.Not saying this is always the case , but it does happen .
Using your money to develop software that is licensed for you to use freely is a good example .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The government has always acted in its own interests.
Perhaps they have realised that releasing software as OSS suits their purposes.
People have always acted in their own interests.
A good government (one that is of and by the people) acting in its own interest is acting in your interest as well.Not saying this is always the case, but it does happen.
Using your money to develop software that is licensed for you to use freely is a good example.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29891085</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29894385</id>
	<title>Re:This is very odd...</title>
	<author>howlingmadhowie</author>
	<datestamp>1256723580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The government has always acted in its own interests.</p></div><p>oh, citation needed big time.  maybe this is true in some communist/fascist dictatorships, but i really do like to believe (and i see evidence that supports this belief) that in first-world countries with constitutions and functioning legal systems, the government is mostly a government of the people, by the people and for the people.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The government has always acted in its own interests.oh , citation needed big time .
maybe this is true in some communist/fascist dictatorships , but i really do like to believe ( and i see evidence that supports this belief ) that in first-world countries with constitutions and functioning legal systems , the government is mostly a government of the people , by the people and for the people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The government has always acted in its own interests.oh, citation needed big time.
maybe this is true in some communist/fascist dictatorships, but i really do like to believe (and i see evidence that supports this belief) that in first-world countries with constitutions and functioning legal systems, the government is mostly a government of the people, by the people and for the people.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29891085</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2115243_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29897713
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29891059
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29890887
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2115243_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29892643
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29891431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29891109
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2115243_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29892833
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29891773
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29890819
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2115243_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29896913
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29893421
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2115243_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29897925
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29891111
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2115243_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29898509
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29891431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29891109
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2115243_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29894449
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29892395
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2115243_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29895103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29893421
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2115243_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29892285
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29890887
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2115243_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29891407
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29891085
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29890819
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2115243_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29900457
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29892395
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2115243_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29892979
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29891001
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2115243_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29894385
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29891085
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29890819
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2115243_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29893113
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29891109
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2115243_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29891007
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29890887
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2115243_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29892609
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29891001
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2115243_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29895827
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29892395
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2115243_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29900919
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29893421
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2115243_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29893435
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29891773
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29890819
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2115243_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29894493
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29892555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29891431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29891109
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2115243_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29897363
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29890927
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29890819
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2115243_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29892757
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29891307
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29890887
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2115243_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29891015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29890819
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2115243_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29890953
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29890887
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2115243_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29891385
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29891109
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2115243_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29892859
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29891627
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2115243_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29893089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29891085
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29890819
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2115243_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29892607
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29891111
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_2115243.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29891105
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_2115243.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29891421
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_2115243.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29893421
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29900919
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29895103
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29896913
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_2115243.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29890839
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_2115243.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29891111
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29897925
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29892607
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_2115243.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29891109
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29891431
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29898509
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29892643
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29892555
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29894493
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29891385
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29893113
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_2115243.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29891001
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29892979
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29892609
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_2115243.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29894255
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_2115243.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29892973
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_2115243.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29890817
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_2115243.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29890819
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29891015
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29891773
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29892833
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29893435
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29891085
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29891407
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29893089
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29894385
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29890927
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29897363
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_2115243.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29890887
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29890953
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29892285
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29891059
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29897713
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29891307
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29892757
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29891007
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_2115243.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29892395
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29895827
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29900457
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29894449
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_2115243.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29891627
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29892859
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_2115243.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2115243.29893335
</commentlist>
</conversation>
