<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_10_1540242</id>
	<title>SFLC Finds One New GPL Violation Per Day</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1257868920000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="mailto:my/.username@@@gmail.com" rel="nofollow">eldavojohn</a> writes <i>"In July, the Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) <a href="http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/07/28/0045229/SFLC-Says-Microsoft-Violated-the-GPL">leveled the finger at Microsoft for a GPL violation</a> but how often does this actually happen?  Sunday, Brad M. Kuhn (tech director at the SFLC) stated in his blog that since August of 2009 <a href="http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2009/11/08/gpl-enforcement.html">he has been finding about one per day</a>.  So why is it that we have only covered a handful of these cases in the news?  Brad offers sage wisdom;  surprisingly, he recommends, 'Don't go public first. Back around late 1999, when I found my first GPL violation from scratch, I wanted to post it to every mailing list I could find and shame that company that failed to respect and cooperate with the software freedom community. I'm glad that I didn't do that, because I've since seen similar actions destroy the lines of communication with violators, and make resolution tougher.'  Public shame is evidently not always the best answer.  Ars has a few more details and notes that (in accordance with Brad's advice) <a href="http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2009/11/sflc-tech-director-finds-one-new-gpl-violator-every-day.ars">lawsuits are usually a dead last resort</a>."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>eldavojohn writes " In July , the Software Freedom Law Center ( SFLC ) leveled the finger at Microsoft for a GPL violation but how often does this actually happen ?
Sunday , Brad M. Kuhn ( tech director at the SFLC ) stated in his blog that since August of 2009 he has been finding about one per day .
So why is it that we have only covered a handful of these cases in the news ?
Brad offers sage wisdom ; surprisingly , he recommends , 'Do n't go public first .
Back around late 1999 , when I found my first GPL violation from scratch , I wanted to post it to every mailing list I could find and shame that company that failed to respect and cooperate with the software freedom community .
I 'm glad that I did n't do that , because I 've since seen similar actions destroy the lines of communication with violators , and make resolution tougher .
' Public shame is evidently not always the best answer .
Ars has a few more details and notes that ( in accordance with Brad 's advice ) lawsuits are usually a dead last resort .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>eldavojohn writes "In July, the Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) leveled the finger at Microsoft for a GPL violation but how often does this actually happen?
Sunday, Brad M. Kuhn (tech director at the SFLC) stated in his blog that since August of 2009 he has been finding about one per day.
So why is it that we have only covered a handful of these cases in the news?
Brad offers sage wisdom;  surprisingly, he recommends, 'Don't go public first.
Back around late 1999, when I found my first GPL violation from scratch, I wanted to post it to every mailing list I could find and shame that company that failed to respect and cooperate with the software freedom community.
I'm glad that I didn't do that, because I've since seen similar actions destroy the lines of communication with violators, and make resolution tougher.
'  Public shame is evidently not always the best answer.
Ars has a few more details and notes that (in accordance with Brad's advice) lawsuits are usually a dead last resort.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30060952</id>
	<title>Re:Behind the scenes or not</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257094200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's only natural to be pissed off that well meaning individuals are buying into the FSF propaganda and releasing proprietary GPL code that cannot be freely shared and enhanced by other well meaning individuals.<br>Once a project is GPL-contaminated it is Game Over.<br>Even the GNUtards are being bitten by their own stupidity. The Linux kernel cannot be linked to GPLv3 code, hahaha, fuck you Stallman, and fuck you dolphins!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's only natural to be pissed off that well meaning individuals are buying into the FSF propaganda and releasing proprietary GPL code that can not be freely shared and enhanced by other well meaning individuals.Once a project is GPL-contaminated it is Game Over.Even the GNUtards are being bitten by their own stupidity .
The Linux kernel can not be linked to GPLv3 code , hahaha , fuck you Stallman , and fuck you dolphins !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's only natural to be pissed off that well meaning individuals are buying into the FSF propaganda and releasing proprietary GPL code that cannot be freely shared and enhanced by other well meaning individuals.Once a project is GPL-contaminated it is Game Over.Even the GNUtards are being bitten by their own stupidity.
The Linux kernel cannot be linked to GPLv3 code, hahaha, fuck you Stallman, and fuck you dolphins!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30049850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30046650</id>
	<title>Going to court and going public</title>
	<author>Corporate T00l</author>
	<datestamp>1257873180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not really surprising that going to court and going public are really last resort sort of things. Court is expensive, and most people considering them to be a "roll of the dice". Actually negotiating with your counterparty in a contract dispute is always cheaper and more productive.</p><p>Going public, even after going to court, also sours the atmosphere, creating emotional contention that makes an actual agreement less likely. Look at out-of-court settlements with undisclosed terms and no party admitting fault. Once you get out of the public light, you can get people to sit down and discuss and actually come to a mutual agreement since the emotions have been toned down. If you're all fury and anger, you're not really in a position to negotiate someone into a corrective action.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not really surprising that going to court and going public are really last resort sort of things .
Court is expensive , and most people considering them to be a " roll of the dice " .
Actually negotiating with your counterparty in a contract dispute is always cheaper and more productive.Going public , even after going to court , also sours the atmosphere , creating emotional contention that makes an actual agreement less likely .
Look at out-of-court settlements with undisclosed terms and no party admitting fault .
Once you get out of the public light , you can get people to sit down and discuss and actually come to a mutual agreement since the emotions have been toned down .
If you 're all fury and anger , you 're not really in a position to negotiate someone into a corrective action .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not really surprising that going to court and going public are really last resort sort of things.
Court is expensive, and most people considering them to be a "roll of the dice".
Actually negotiating with your counterparty in a contract dispute is always cheaper and more productive.Going public, even after going to court, also sours the atmosphere, creating emotional contention that makes an actual agreement less likely.
Look at out-of-court settlements with undisclosed terms and no party admitting fault.
Once you get out of the public light, you can get people to sit down and discuss and actually come to a mutual agreement since the emotions have been toned down.
If you're all fury and anger, you're not really in a position to negotiate someone into a corrective action.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30046740</id>
	<title>Ah yes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257873540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ah yes, another one of these stories. Expect to see some references to M$, people defending GPL and people advocating BSD. All in all, everyone will agree that respecting open source licenses is very important. Next thread, something about RIAA, same people demanding their right to download copyrighted music.</p><p>Pathetic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah yes , another one of these stories .
Expect to see some references to M $ , people defending GPL and people advocating BSD .
All in all , everyone will agree that respecting open source licenses is very important .
Next thread , something about RIAA , same people demanding their right to download copyrighted music.Pathetic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah yes, another one of these stories.
Expect to see some references to M$, people defending GPL and people advocating BSD.
All in all, everyone will agree that respecting open source licenses is very important.
Next thread, something about RIAA, same people demanding their right to download copyrighted music.Pathetic.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30049170</id>
	<title>Re:Behind the scenes or not</title>
	<author>WNight</author>
	<datestamp>1257881640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But if the source isn't visible they aren't claiming your source is theirs, just that the product is theirs. Microsoft claims Windows is theirs despite the theoretical heritage of the FTP client, for example.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But if the source is n't visible they are n't claiming your source is theirs , just that the product is theirs .
Microsoft claims Windows is theirs despite the theoretical heritage of the FTP client , for example .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But if the source isn't visible they aren't claiming your source is theirs, just that the product is theirs.
Microsoft claims Windows is theirs despite the theoretical heritage of the FTP client, for example.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30048060</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30049242</id>
	<title>Re:Lets be civilized people.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257882000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Oddly enough most companies even the Evil Microsoft will much rather fix the problem without having to fight it legally, and resolve the problem civilly.  When you pre-poster aggressive towards your opponent they will do the same.  And if you are Not for Profit organization and you opponent is a big multi-national company, you are going to be in for a big fight where if you were just to be polite and civil about it chances are you will get your objectives, they will quietly fix their problems and save face.  Most of the time these GPL violations are not done deliberately but the GPL is a strict license and for a big company you will have people putting in things that they didn't even realize was wrong.  Or worse say some GPL Code was cut as a segment for a help forum and was used from that.  So yes they violated the code, they probably didn't mean too, if you are nice to them they will probably fix it.  If you go all out and make yourself aggressive they will be aggressive too, and put you in a case even if you win you loose.</p></div><p>Considering that MS is a major player in the IP enforcement racket, that's a very charitable attitude to have.</p><p>But groups like the BSA in the USA and FACT in the UK exist purely to enforce the likes of MS's EULAs. If you make a mistake with MS's licensing, and get caught by a group that actively looks for mistakes (and MS's licensing rules mean mistakes are easy to make), you will have unforeseen costs coming your way - through either suddenly having to pay for more licences, or defending yourself from being sued. The BSA/FACT exists to 1) detract from the individual companies who could well be fucking over small businesses and individuals (bad for PR), and 2) make the enforcement of their licences more efficient, by pooling the enforcement costs. Any entity that does things like this does not deserve charity.</p><p>I say if you are a copyright holder and your GPL code gets violated by a for-profit entity you should be looking to sue for as much as possible, and get the terms of the GPL fully enforced. If MS "accidentally" put some GPL code into Office, well, then Office needs to be opened and the profits so far need to be handed over to the original GPL'd code writer. And Office needs to be taken off the market. MS won't accidentally put GPL code in a product again after that.</p><p>I don't know what a court would do if you went in there, fucked over a company who had broken some rule whilst at the same time you are saying that the law is utterly unreasonable, but GPL violations are a good opportunity to publicise how fucked up IP law is.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oddly enough most companies even the Evil Microsoft will much rather fix the problem without having to fight it legally , and resolve the problem civilly .
When you pre-poster aggressive towards your opponent they will do the same .
And if you are Not for Profit organization and you opponent is a big multi-national company , you are going to be in for a big fight where if you were just to be polite and civil about it chances are you will get your objectives , they will quietly fix their problems and save face .
Most of the time these GPL violations are not done deliberately but the GPL is a strict license and for a big company you will have people putting in things that they did n't even realize was wrong .
Or worse say some GPL Code was cut as a segment for a help forum and was used from that .
So yes they violated the code , they probably did n't mean too , if you are nice to them they will probably fix it .
If you go all out and make yourself aggressive they will be aggressive too , and put you in a case even if you win you loose.Considering that MS is a major player in the IP enforcement racket , that 's a very charitable attitude to have.But groups like the BSA in the USA and FACT in the UK exist purely to enforce the likes of MS 's EULAs .
If you make a mistake with MS 's licensing , and get caught by a group that actively looks for mistakes ( and MS 's licensing rules mean mistakes are easy to make ) , you will have unforeseen costs coming your way - through either suddenly having to pay for more licences , or defending yourself from being sued .
The BSA/FACT exists to 1 ) detract from the individual companies who could well be fucking over small businesses and individuals ( bad for PR ) , and 2 ) make the enforcement of their licences more efficient , by pooling the enforcement costs .
Any entity that does things like this does not deserve charity.I say if you are a copyright holder and your GPL code gets violated by a for-profit entity you should be looking to sue for as much as possible , and get the terms of the GPL fully enforced .
If MS " accidentally " put some GPL code into Office , well , then Office needs to be opened and the profits so far need to be handed over to the original GPL 'd code writer .
And Office needs to be taken off the market .
MS wo n't accidentally put GPL code in a product again after that.I do n't know what a court would do if you went in there , fucked over a company who had broken some rule whilst at the same time you are saying that the law is utterly unreasonable , but GPL violations are a good opportunity to publicise how fucked up IP law is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oddly enough most companies even the Evil Microsoft will much rather fix the problem without having to fight it legally, and resolve the problem civilly.
When you pre-poster aggressive towards your opponent they will do the same.
And if you are Not for Profit organization and you opponent is a big multi-national company, you are going to be in for a big fight where if you were just to be polite and civil about it chances are you will get your objectives, they will quietly fix their problems and save face.
Most of the time these GPL violations are not done deliberately but the GPL is a strict license and for a big company you will have people putting in things that they didn't even realize was wrong.
Or worse say some GPL Code was cut as a segment for a help forum and was used from that.
So yes they violated the code, they probably didn't mean too, if you are nice to them they will probably fix it.
If you go all out and make yourself aggressive they will be aggressive too, and put you in a case even if you win you loose.Considering that MS is a major player in the IP enforcement racket, that's a very charitable attitude to have.But groups like the BSA in the USA and FACT in the UK exist purely to enforce the likes of MS's EULAs.
If you make a mistake with MS's licensing, and get caught by a group that actively looks for mistakes (and MS's licensing rules mean mistakes are easy to make), you will have unforeseen costs coming your way - through either suddenly having to pay for more licences, or defending yourself from being sued.
The BSA/FACT exists to 1) detract from the individual companies who could well be fucking over small businesses and individuals (bad for PR), and 2) make the enforcement of their licences more efficient, by pooling the enforcement costs.
Any entity that does things like this does not deserve charity.I say if you are a copyright holder and your GPL code gets violated by a for-profit entity you should be looking to sue for as much as possible, and get the terms of the GPL fully enforced.
If MS "accidentally" put some GPL code into Office, well, then Office needs to be opened and the profits so far need to be handed over to the original GPL'd code writer.
And Office needs to be taken off the market.
MS won't accidentally put GPL code in a product again after that.I don't know what a court would do if you went in there, fucked over a company who had broken some rule whilst at the same time you are saying that the law is utterly unreasonable, but GPL violations are a good opportunity to publicise how fucked up IP law is.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30046628</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30047992</id>
	<title>Re:Behind the scenes or not</title>
	<author>jim\_v2000</author>
	<datestamp>1257877680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt;They don't have to say you had anything to do with it. They can just collect the bounty and laugh all the way to the bank.

I'd assume that anyone who puts their code in the public domain doesn't really give a crap who does what with it.  It's not like your code is somehow magical and no one else could ever have come up with it.  At best you're just saving someone else some time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; They do n't have to say you had anything to do with it .
They can just collect the bounty and laugh all the way to the bank .
I 'd assume that anyone who puts their code in the public domain does n't really give a crap who does what with it .
It 's not like your code is somehow magical and no one else could ever have come up with it .
At best you 're just saving someone else some time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;They don't have to say you had anything to do with it.
They can just collect the bounty and laugh all the way to the bank.
I'd assume that anyone who puts their code in the public domain doesn't really give a crap who does what with it.
It's not like your code is somehow magical and no one else could ever have come up with it.
At best you're just saving someone else some time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30046850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30046560</id>
	<title>Behind the scenes or not</title>
	<author>impaledsunset</author>
	<datestamp>1257872820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's why I use real free and open source licenses, non abominations like the GPL. Making your software "free" and then fighting people using it with legal pressure, eh?</p><p>I put everything in the public domain, and I sleep well at night without having nightmares that someone might have violated my license.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's why I use real free and open source licenses , non abominations like the GPL .
Making your software " free " and then fighting people using it with legal pressure , eh ? I put everything in the public domain , and I sleep well at night without having nightmares that someone might have violated my license .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's why I use real free and open source licenses, non abominations like the GPL.
Making your software "free" and then fighting people using it with legal pressure, eh?I put everything in the public domain, and I sleep well at night without having nightmares that someone might have violated my license.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30050644</id>
	<title>Re:Behind the scenes or not</title>
	<author>petrus4</author>
	<datestamp>1257844260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's sadly predictable that the parent was modded -1, Troll.  It should have rightfully been modded +1, Insightful.</p><p>Public domain <b>is</b> the most morally desirable way to license code, in truth; but that is, of course, why virtually no one does it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's sadly predictable that the parent was modded -1 , Troll .
It should have rightfully been modded + 1 , Insightful.Public domain is the most morally desirable way to license code , in truth ; but that is , of course , why virtually no one does it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's sadly predictable that the parent was modded -1, Troll.
It should have rightfully been modded +1, Insightful.Public domain is the most morally desirable way to license code, in truth; but that is, of course, why virtually no one does it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30046560</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30050384</id>
	<title>Re:Ah yes</title>
	<author>Speare</author>
	<datestamp>1257886320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Do not conflate the GPL with the public domain.  If there is a copyright in force, it is not in the public domain.  It is in the public's reach, and if they follow the rules of the license they can use it, but it is not in the public domain.  The public domain is the forgotten side of the copyright bargain, that [i]for limited times[/i] the authors can impose rules on the use of their works.  By the way, in most countries, one can simply declare that they grant their own works to the public domain, as a gift to mankind, rather than waiting the requisite half-eternity to allow the copyrights to expire.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do not conflate the GPL with the public domain .
If there is a copyright in force , it is not in the public domain .
It is in the public 's reach , and if they follow the rules of the license they can use it , but it is not in the public domain .
The public domain is the forgotten side of the copyright bargain , that [ i ] for limited times [ /i ] the authors can impose rules on the use of their works .
By the way , in most countries , one can simply declare that they grant their own works to the public domain , as a gift to mankind , rather than waiting the requisite half-eternity to allow the copyrights to expire .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do not conflate the GPL with the public domain.
If there is a copyright in force, it is not in the public domain.
It is in the public's reach, and if they follow the rules of the license they can use it, but it is not in the public domain.
The public domain is the forgotten side of the copyright bargain, that [i]for limited times[/i] the authors can impose rules on the use of their works.
By the way, in most countries, one can simply declare that they grant their own works to the public domain, as a gift to mankind, rather than waiting the requisite half-eternity to allow the copyrights to expire.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30047010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30048294</id>
	<title>Re:Lets be civilized people.</title>
	<author>tearmeapart</author>
	<datestamp>1257878640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I find it hard to believe you can post that just a few hours after the "Microsoft Tries To Censor Bing Vulnerability" story was posted ( <a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/11/09/2319233/Microsoft-Tries-To-Censor-Bing-Vulnerability" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/11/09/2319233/Microsoft-Tries-To-Censor-Bing-Vulnerability</a> [slashdot.org] ).</p><p>IMHO, Microsoft's lawyers (collectively) are faster and better than Microsoft's developers (collectively).</p><p>Just from that, I believe your arguments are mostly moot.</p><p>Also, Microsoft's legal department and development/maintenance team are two separate entities. Legal will do what it needs to do to protect the company (which is what it is trying to do here) and get more money. Microsoft's developers (whether hired by Microsoft full time or via a contract) will try to avoid boring work, which is why they used the GPL code.</p><p>However, I still agree that contacting the person/company/organization/corporation before spreading the news is the right thing to do, but it is not absolutely necessary.<br>I do not doubt that the lawyers at Microsoft will use the full extent of the law (and even go beyond when it can) to protect Microsoft and themselves, so I would not want to ever (non-anonymously) release a vulnerability.</p><p>That being said,<br>Microsoft:<br>Please fix the vulnerabilities I sent to you last year, as I am very tempted to spread them or use them. I know your people can sleep knowing a few critical vulnerabilities exist with IIS and Windows, but I sometimes cannot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I find it hard to believe you can post that just a few hours after the " Microsoft Tries To Censor Bing Vulnerability " story was posted ( http : //yro.slashdot.org/story/09/11/09/2319233/Microsoft-Tries-To-Censor-Bing-Vulnerability [ slashdot.org ] ) .IMHO , Microsoft 's lawyers ( collectively ) are faster and better than Microsoft 's developers ( collectively ) .Just from that , I believe your arguments are mostly moot.Also , Microsoft 's legal department and development/maintenance team are two separate entities .
Legal will do what it needs to do to protect the company ( which is what it is trying to do here ) and get more money .
Microsoft 's developers ( whether hired by Microsoft full time or via a contract ) will try to avoid boring work , which is why they used the GPL code.However , I still agree that contacting the person/company/organization/corporation before spreading the news is the right thing to do , but it is not absolutely necessary.I do not doubt that the lawyers at Microsoft will use the full extent of the law ( and even go beyond when it can ) to protect Microsoft and themselves , so I would not want to ever ( non-anonymously ) release a vulnerability.That being said,Microsoft : Please fix the vulnerabilities I sent to you last year , as I am very tempted to spread them or use them .
I know your people can sleep knowing a few critical vulnerabilities exist with IIS and Windows , but I sometimes can not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find it hard to believe you can post that just a few hours after the "Microsoft Tries To Censor Bing Vulnerability" story was posted ( http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/11/09/2319233/Microsoft-Tries-To-Censor-Bing-Vulnerability [slashdot.org] ).IMHO, Microsoft's lawyers (collectively) are faster and better than Microsoft's developers (collectively).Just from that, I believe your arguments are mostly moot.Also, Microsoft's legal department and development/maintenance team are two separate entities.
Legal will do what it needs to do to protect the company (which is what it is trying to do here) and get more money.
Microsoft's developers (whether hired by Microsoft full time or via a contract) will try to avoid boring work, which is why they used the GPL code.However, I still agree that contacting the person/company/organization/corporation before spreading the news is the right thing to do, but it is not absolutely necessary.I do not doubt that the lawyers at Microsoft will use the full extent of the law (and even go beyond when it can) to protect Microsoft and themselves, so I would not want to ever (non-anonymously) release a vulnerability.That being said,Microsoft:Please fix the vulnerabilities I sent to you last year, as I am very tempted to spread them or use them.
I know your people can sleep knowing a few critical vulnerabilities exist with IIS and Windows, but I sometimes cannot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30046628</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30048120</id>
	<title>Re:Behind the scenes or not</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1257878040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Ever consider that the latest and greatest feature in the latest and greatest, multi-million unit shipping product may be using code you developed?</i></p><p><i>Ever wanted to maybe boost your pay by jumping to a new company, based on that?</i></p><p><i>Tough shit. They don't have to say you had anything to do with it.</i></p><p>If you cared about that, why would you put your code in the public domain?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ever consider that the latest and greatest feature in the latest and greatest , multi-million unit shipping product may be using code you developed ? Ever wanted to maybe boost your pay by jumping to a new company , based on that ? Tough shit .
They do n't have to say you had anything to do with it.If you cared about that , why would you put your code in the public domain ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ever consider that the latest and greatest feature in the latest and greatest, multi-million unit shipping product may be using code you developed?Ever wanted to maybe boost your pay by jumping to a new company, based on that?Tough shit.
They don't have to say you had anything to do with it.If you cared about that, why would you put your code in the public domain?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30046850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30048060</id>
	<title>Re:Behind the scenes or not</title>
	<author>dangitman</author>
	<datestamp>1257877860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Hell, they can even say they developed it themselves, as long as they can read what you've coded.</p> </div><p>Not true, actually. That would be plagiarism, which is entirely different to using someone else's code. It's the difference between quoting someone in a paper you wrote, and claiming that you were the originator of the quote. It falls under the "Moral Rights" clauses of copyright law, and beyond that under almost any ethics system and human decency.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hell , they can even say they developed it themselves , as long as they can read what you 've coded .
Not true , actually .
That would be plagiarism , which is entirely different to using someone else 's code .
It 's the difference between quoting someone in a paper you wrote , and claiming that you were the originator of the quote .
It falls under the " Moral Rights " clauses of copyright law , and beyond that under almost any ethics system and human decency .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Hell, they can even say they developed it themselves, as long as they can read what you've coded.
Not true, actually.
That would be plagiarism, which is entirely different to using someone else's code.
It's the difference between quoting someone in a paper you wrote, and claiming that you were the originator of the quote.
It falls under the "Moral Rights" clauses of copyright law, and beyond that under almost any ethics system and human decency.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30046850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30050696</id>
	<title>GPL is about fixing public domain.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257844500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I put everything in the public domain, and I sleep well at night without having nightmares that someone might have violated my license.</i></p><p>Then here's a nightmare for you:</p><p>
&nbsp; - A serious bug is discovered in your wonderful PD product.  (Maybe some subtle security hole that the malware gangs find and exploit.)</p><p>
&nbsp; - Somebody makes a fix AND COPYRIGHTS THE FIXED VERSION.</p><p>
&nbsp; - You can't import the fix to YOUR version without violating the copyright.</p><p>
&nbsp; - None of your users can fix the bug either.  They have to migrate to the other guy's version - maybe for big bucks, drop the functionality, or go with some other product.  They're screwed.</p><p>
&nbsp; - Your left with no users of your stuff (except the ones that are using it as the other guy's version) and no way to expand and improve it (except to go to work for the other guy).</p><p>THIS is what GPL is designed to head off:  Screwing the users and locking the original authors out of their own product's future.  Under the current copyright law, public domain is BROKEN for any evolving software product.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I put everything in the public domain , and I sleep well at night without having nightmares that someone might have violated my license.Then here 's a nightmare for you :   - A serious bug is discovered in your wonderful PD product .
( Maybe some subtle security hole that the malware gangs find and exploit .
)   - Somebody makes a fix AND COPYRIGHTS THE FIXED VERSION .
  - You ca n't import the fix to YOUR version without violating the copyright .
  - None of your users can fix the bug either .
They have to migrate to the other guy 's version - maybe for big bucks , drop the functionality , or go with some other product .
They 're screwed .
  - Your left with no users of your stuff ( except the ones that are using it as the other guy 's version ) and no way to expand and improve it ( except to go to work for the other guy ) .THIS is what GPL is designed to head off : Screwing the users and locking the original authors out of their own product 's future .
Under the current copyright law , public domain is BROKEN for any evolving software product .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I put everything in the public domain, and I sleep well at night without having nightmares that someone might have violated my license.Then here's a nightmare for you:
  - A serious bug is discovered in your wonderful PD product.
(Maybe some subtle security hole that the malware gangs find and exploit.
)
  - Somebody makes a fix AND COPYRIGHTS THE FIXED VERSION.
  - You can't import the fix to YOUR version without violating the copyright.
  - None of your users can fix the bug either.
They have to migrate to the other guy's version - maybe for big bucks, drop the functionality, or go with some other product.
They're screwed.
  - Your left with no users of your stuff (except the ones that are using it as the other guy's version) and no way to expand and improve it (except to go to work for the other guy).THIS is what GPL is designed to head off:  Screwing the users and locking the original authors out of their own product's future.
Under the current copyright law, public domain is BROKEN for any evolving software product.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30046560</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30046812</id>
	<title>Re:Behind the scenes or not</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257873780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I like keeping my software free for everyone for ever. I'm glad you enjoy end users being robbed of their freedom.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I like keeping my software free for everyone for ever .
I 'm glad you enjoy end users being robbed of their freedom .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like keeping my software free for everyone for ever.
I'm glad you enjoy end users being robbed of their freedom.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30046560</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30048014</id>
	<title>Re:Behind the scenes or not</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257877740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What freedom are end users losing if a company includes public domain code in their software? Please provide realistic and practical examples that prove you've thought about the concept longer than 15 milliseconds.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What freedom are end users losing if a company includes public domain code in their software ?
Please provide realistic and practical examples that prove you 've thought about the concept longer than 15 milliseconds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What freedom are end users losing if a company includes public domain code in their software?
Please provide realistic and practical examples that prove you've thought about the concept longer than 15 milliseconds.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30046812</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30048162</id>
	<title>Re:Behind the scenes or not</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257878160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If it's in the public domain, how is anyone robbed of freedom?  Go grab yourself gcc, download the source, and build it yourself.</p><p>Or did you post as AC because you know that argument holds no water?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it 's in the public domain , how is anyone robbed of freedom ?
Go grab yourself gcc , download the source , and build it yourself.Or did you post as AC because you know that argument holds no water ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it's in the public domain, how is anyone robbed of freedom?
Go grab yourself gcc, download the source, and build it yourself.Or did you post as AC because you know that argument holds no water?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30046812</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30047712</id>
	<title>Re:Ah yes</title>
	<author>Virak</author>
	<datestamp>1257876780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You left out 'people trolling about copyright', evidently.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You left out 'people trolling about copyright ' , evidently .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You left out 'people trolling about copyright', evidently.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30046740</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30050592</id>
	<title>Re:Ah yes</title>
	<author>petrus4</author>
	<datestamp>1257844020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Ah yes, another one of these stories. Expect to see some references to M$, people defending GPL and people advocating BSD. All in all, everyone will agree that respecting open source licenses is very important. Next thread, something about RIAA, same people demanding their right to download copyrighted music.</p><p>Pathetic.</p></div><p>Truthfully, the only people who care about copyright in either case, are those who are afflicted with scarcity thinking...which is all too frequent, sadly.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah yes , another one of these stories .
Expect to see some references to M $ , people defending GPL and people advocating BSD .
All in all , everyone will agree that respecting open source licenses is very important .
Next thread , something about RIAA , same people demanding their right to download copyrighted music.Pathetic.Truthfully , the only people who care about copyright in either case , are those who are afflicted with scarcity thinking...which is all too frequent , sadly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah yes, another one of these stories.
Expect to see some references to M$, people defending GPL and people advocating BSD.
All in all, everyone will agree that respecting open source licenses is very important.
Next thread, something about RIAA, same people demanding their right to download copyrighted music.Pathetic.Truthfully, the only people who care about copyright in either case, are those who are afflicted with scarcity thinking...which is all too frequent, sadly.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30046740</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30052344</id>
	<title>Re:Behind the scenes or not</title>
	<author>dbc</author>
	<datestamp>1257851280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Indeed.  People should chose thier license they way they choose a screwdriver, not they way they choose a religion. GPL serves some goals better, BSD servers other goals better.  Clarify your goals, and choose the license that best serves them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed .
People should chose thier license they way they choose a screwdriver , not they way they choose a religion .
GPL serves some goals better , BSD servers other goals better .
Clarify your goals , and choose the license that best serves them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed.
People should chose thier license they way they choose a screwdriver, not they way they choose a religion.
GPL serves some goals better, BSD servers other goals better.
Clarify your goals, and choose the license that best serves them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30047666</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30049794</id>
	<title>Re:Behind the scenes or not</title>
	<author>spirit of reason</author>
	<datestamp>1257884160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's really a silly argument. The BSD license does have fewer restrictions, but that doesn't make it better than the other. I think people need to understand that the two licenses have different goals in mind, and developers need to respect the wishes of the rights holder. Likewise, developers should take care in what license they use.</p><p>My guess is that the BSD license's intent was to simply give credit where credit was due and to allow researchers to develop code for anyone to use, in proprietary or open source projects, with limited liability. This is a good license to choose if you want to give your code away and only want recognition.</p><p>The GPL's intent should be obvious to everyone here: The FSF is after a system entirely composed of open source software, and the GPL is one of their tools to achieve it. If you do not want to be a part of this community, do not license your software as GPL and do not expect to be able to use someone else's GPL code (in your own code). If you don't like it, tough--you may as well be complaining to a car salesman about your car not being free.</p><p>But if you hate the GPL and FSF, you might not want to use the BSD license. They can use your code too.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's really a silly argument .
The BSD license does have fewer restrictions , but that does n't make it better than the other .
I think people need to understand that the two licenses have different goals in mind , and developers need to respect the wishes of the rights holder .
Likewise , developers should take care in what license they use.My guess is that the BSD license 's intent was to simply give credit where credit was due and to allow researchers to develop code for anyone to use , in proprietary or open source projects , with limited liability .
This is a good license to choose if you want to give your code away and only want recognition.The GPL 's intent should be obvious to everyone here : The FSF is after a system entirely composed of open source software , and the GPL is one of their tools to achieve it .
If you do not want to be a part of this community , do not license your software as GPL and do not expect to be able to use someone else 's GPL code ( in your own code ) .
If you do n't like it , tough--you may as well be complaining to a car salesman about your car not being free.But if you hate the GPL and FSF , you might not want to use the BSD license .
They can use your code too .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's really a silly argument.
The BSD license does have fewer restrictions, but that doesn't make it better than the other.
I think people need to understand that the two licenses have different goals in mind, and developers need to respect the wishes of the rights holder.
Likewise, developers should take care in what license they use.My guess is that the BSD license's intent was to simply give credit where credit was due and to allow researchers to develop code for anyone to use, in proprietary or open source projects, with limited liability.
This is a good license to choose if you want to give your code away and only want recognition.The GPL's intent should be obvious to everyone here: The FSF is after a system entirely composed of open source software, and the GPL is one of their tools to achieve it.
If you do not want to be a part of this community, do not license your software as GPL and do not expect to be able to use someone else's GPL code (in your own code).
If you don't like it, tough--you may as well be complaining to a car salesman about your car not being free.But if you hate the GPL and FSF, you might not want to use the BSD license.
They can use your code too.
;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30047666</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30048798</id>
	<title>Re:Ah yes</title>
	<author>koiransuklaa</author>
	<datestamp>1257880260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And then the same people come and expose the hypocrisy of saying two totally opposite things. And then the same people come and ridicule themselves about making stupid assumptions.</p><p>Those wacky slashdot users.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And then the same people come and expose the hypocrisy of saying two totally opposite things .
And then the same people come and ridicule themselves about making stupid assumptions.Those wacky slashdot users .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And then the same people come and expose the hypocrisy of saying two totally opposite things.
And then the same people come and ridicule themselves about making stupid assumptions.Those wacky slashdot users.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30046740</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30046512</id>
	<title>closed up</title>
	<author>runyonave</author>
	<datestamp>1257872700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext> hardcore closed source company is alwyas going to have violations. Also it's Microsoft.</htmltext>
<tokenext>hardcore closed source company is alwyas going to have violations .
Also it 's Microsoft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> hardcore closed source company is alwyas going to have violations.
Also it's Microsoft.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30053264</id>
	<title>Re:Behind the scenes or not</title>
	<author>DeadCatX2</author>
	<datestamp>1257855720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No one is stopping you from playing with the code.  If you fork an open-source project and close that source, the original still exists.  If the closed one gets improvements that make the open one look quaint, certainly there are more than enough uber-coders to reverse engineer the changes and add them back into the public domain.</p><p>I am certain you could have learned to program by reading a different set of source code had the one that you read not been available.  Certainly there will always be open-source programs, public domain or not.</p><p>But forcing all derivative works to be open is no better than forcing all derivative works to be closed.  If I am building a product for my company to sell, I have to avoid GPL code like it was HIV positive.  <b>That</b> can hurt the user, by prolonging or altogether preventing a useful application from coming into existence.  Seriously, do most users care more if A) the program works or B) if the source is open?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No one is stopping you from playing with the code .
If you fork an open-source project and close that source , the original still exists .
If the closed one gets improvements that make the open one look quaint , certainly there are more than enough uber-coders to reverse engineer the changes and add them back into the public domain.I am certain you could have learned to program by reading a different set of source code had the one that you read not been available .
Certainly there will always be open-source programs , public domain or not.But forcing all derivative works to be open is no better than forcing all derivative works to be closed .
If I am building a product for my company to sell , I have to avoid GPL code like it was HIV positive .
That can hurt the user , by prolonging or altogether preventing a useful application from coming into existence .
Seriously , do most users care more if A ) the program works or B ) if the source is open ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No one is stopping you from playing with the code.
If you fork an open-source project and close that source, the original still exists.
If the closed one gets improvements that make the open one look quaint, certainly there are more than enough uber-coders to reverse engineer the changes and add them back into the public domain.I am certain you could have learned to program by reading a different set of source code had the one that you read not been available.
Certainly there will always be open-source programs, public domain or not.But forcing all derivative works to be open is no better than forcing all derivative works to be closed.
If I am building a product for my company to sell, I have to avoid GPL code like it was HIV positive.
That can hurt the user, by prolonging or altogether preventing a useful application from coming into existence.
Seriously, do most users care more if A) the program works or B) if the source is open?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30049058</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30048866</id>
	<title>Re:Behind the scenes or not</title>
	<author>WNight</author>
	<datestamp>1257880620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They lose the freedom to tinker with what would have been open, whatever it was that the company theoretically closed.</p><p>If that's the component they're struggling to fix it could be all-important.</p><p>I found a minor bug in Rubygems the other day simply by reading the source. If it wasn't available I'd still be wondering what was supposed to happen and tweaking my code trying to make it work.</p><p>Solitaire doesn't run better just because it's open sourced so many users might not even notice, but the ones who poke around or fix anything would. It's the difference between a usable machine and one completely covered into anti-tampering epoxy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They lose the freedom to tinker with what would have been open , whatever it was that the company theoretically closed.If that 's the component they 're struggling to fix it could be all-important.I found a minor bug in Rubygems the other day simply by reading the source .
If it was n't available I 'd still be wondering what was supposed to happen and tweaking my code trying to make it work.Solitaire does n't run better just because it 's open sourced so many users might not even notice , but the ones who poke around or fix anything would .
It 's the difference between a usable machine and one completely covered into anti-tampering epoxy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They lose the freedom to tinker with what would have been open, whatever it was that the company theoretically closed.If that's the component they're struggling to fix it could be all-important.I found a minor bug in Rubygems the other day simply by reading the source.
If it wasn't available I'd still be wondering what was supposed to happen and tweaking my code trying to make it work.Solitaire doesn't run better just because it's open sourced so many users might not even notice, but the ones who poke around or fix anything would.
It's the difference between a usable machine and one completely covered into anti-tampering epoxy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30048014</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30047616</id>
	<title>Re:Behind the scenes or not</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257876480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Interesting?  Mod this guy "grade A moron".</p><p>"That's why I use real free and open source licenses, non abominations like the GPL."</p><p>Link to your public domain software please!</p><p>I like how you think it's free because someone can disappear it into a giant bigger chunk of technology, then "enhance and expand" your market away, such that your product is impossible to use, but the "real" product, run by some company anywhere, is the only way to do it.</p><p>But by all means, if you want to do that, go ahead.  You get the satisfaction of having enhanced human knowledge, just like the GPL guys.  You also get to provide charity for someone with tons of money, who gets more blowjobs in a month than you get in a decade.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Interesting ?
Mod this guy " grade A moron " .
" That 's why I use real free and open source licenses , non abominations like the GPL .
" Link to your public domain software please ! I like how you think it 's free because someone can disappear it into a giant bigger chunk of technology , then " enhance and expand " your market away , such that your product is impossible to use , but the " real " product , run by some company anywhere , is the only way to do it.But by all means , if you want to do that , go ahead .
You get the satisfaction of having enhanced human knowledge , just like the GPL guys .
You also get to provide charity for someone with tons of money , who gets more blowjobs in a month than you get in a decade .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interesting?
Mod this guy "grade A moron".
"That's why I use real free and open source licenses, non abominations like the GPL.
"Link to your public domain software please!I like how you think it's free because someone can disappear it into a giant bigger chunk of technology, then "enhance and expand" your market away, such that your product is impossible to use, but the "real" product, run by some company anywhere, is the only way to do it.But by all means, if you want to do that, go ahead.
You get the satisfaction of having enhanced human knowledge, just like the GPL guys.
You also get to provide charity for someone with tons of money, who gets more blowjobs in a month than you get in a decade.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30046560</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30049850</id>
	<title>Re:Behind the scenes or not</title>
	<author>Rennt</author>
	<datestamp>1257884400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>You may choose to define "free" however you like (this is an acknowledged problem with the term), however when the context is free software, the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free\_Software\_Definition" title="wikipedia.org">Free Software Definition</a> [wikipedia.org] is fairly well established.
<ul> <li>run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0)</li>
<li>study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1)</li>
<li>redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2)</li>
<li>improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3)</li></ul><p>You are, of course, also free NOT to release your own work under the GPL. Meanwhile, imposing your sense of freedom on others reduces their freedoms no matter which license you choose.</p><p>Now you did not actually reveal what your ideal "free" licence is, but I will share with you Rennt's Law: "The probability that anyone arguing that the GPL is not "free" is really just pissed that BSD is not as popular is exactly 1".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You may choose to define " free " however you like ( this is an acknowledged problem with the term ) , however when the context is free software , the Free Software Definition [ wikipedia.org ] is fairly well established .
run the program , for any purpose ( freedom 0 ) study how the program works , and adapt it to your needs ( freedom 1 ) redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor ( freedom 2 ) improve the program , and release your improvements to the public , so that the whole community benefits ( freedom 3 ) You are , of course , also free NOT to release your own work under the GPL .
Meanwhile , imposing your sense of freedom on others reduces their freedoms no matter which license you choose.Now you did not actually reveal what your ideal " free " licence is , but I will share with you Rennt 's Law : " The probability that anyone arguing that the GPL is not " free " is really just pissed that BSD is not as popular is exactly 1 " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You may choose to define "free" however you like (this is an acknowledged problem with the term), however when the context is free software, the Free Software Definition [wikipedia.org] is fairly well established.
run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0)
study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1)
redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2)
improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3)You are, of course, also free NOT to release your own work under the GPL.
Meanwhile, imposing your sense of freedom on others reduces their freedoms no matter which license you choose.Now you did not actually reveal what your ideal "free" licence is, but I will share with you Rennt's Law: "The probability that anyone arguing that the GPL is not "free" is really just pissed that BSD is not as popular is exactly 1".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30047950</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30047666</id>
	<title>Re:Behind the scenes or not</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257876660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>May I advance a humble proposal that any post along the lines of "GPL is better than BSDL" or "BSDL is better than GPL" is modded Flamebait and/or Troll on sight? Personally, I'm sick of these endless and pointless fights over nothing, where arguments boil down to who is "more free", with either side persisting in the claim that their definition of "free" is the One and Only True Free.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>May I advance a humble proposal that any post along the lines of " GPL is better than BSDL " or " BSDL is better than GPL " is modded Flamebait and/or Troll on sight ?
Personally , I 'm sick of these endless and pointless fights over nothing , where arguments boil down to who is " more free " , with either side persisting in the claim that their definition of " free " is the One and Only True Free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>May I advance a humble proposal that any post along the lines of "GPL is better than BSDL" or "BSDL is better than GPL" is modded Flamebait and/or Troll on sight?
Personally, I'm sick of these endless and pointless fights over nothing, where arguments boil down to who is "more free", with either side persisting in the claim that their definition of "free" is the One and Only True Free.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30046560</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30046850</id>
	<title>Re:Behind the scenes or not</title>
	<author>L4t3r4lu5</author>
	<datestamp>1257873960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ever consider that the latest and greatest feature in the latest and greatest, multi-million unit shipping product may be using code you developed?<br> <br>Ever wanted to maybe boost your pay by jumping to a new company, based on that?<br> <br>Tough shit. They don't have to say you had anything to do with it. They can just collect the bounty and laugh all the way to the bank. They might have a toast in your name for being a baffoon. Hell, they can even say they developed it themselves, as long as they can read what you've coded. If you're happy with that then fine, amazing, how altruistic of you. I applaud you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ever consider that the latest and greatest feature in the latest and greatest , multi-million unit shipping product may be using code you developed ?
Ever wanted to maybe boost your pay by jumping to a new company , based on that ?
Tough shit .
They do n't have to say you had anything to do with it .
They can just collect the bounty and laugh all the way to the bank .
They might have a toast in your name for being a baffoon .
Hell , they can even say they developed it themselves , as long as they can read what you 've coded .
If you 're happy with that then fine , amazing , how altruistic of you .
I applaud you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ever consider that the latest and greatest feature in the latest and greatest, multi-million unit shipping product may be using code you developed?
Ever wanted to maybe boost your pay by jumping to a new company, based on that?
Tough shit.
They don't have to say you had anything to do with it.
They can just collect the bounty and laugh all the way to the bank.
They might have a toast in your name for being a baffoon.
Hell, they can even say they developed it themselves, as long as they can read what you've coded.
If you're happy with that then fine, amazing, how altruistic of you.
I applaud you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30046560</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30046628</id>
	<title>Lets be civilized people.</title>
	<author>jellomizer</author>
	<datestamp>1257873120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oddly enough most companies even the Evil Microsoft will much rather fix the problem without having to fight it legally, and resolve the problem civilly.  When you pre-poster aggressive towards your opponent they will do the same.  And if you are Not for Profit organization and you opponent is a big multi-national company, you are going to be in for a big fight where if you were just to be polite and civil about it chances are you will get your objectives, they will quietly fix their problems and save face.  Most of the time these GPL violations are not done deliberately but the GPL is a strict license and for a big company you will have people putting in things that they didn't even realize was wrong.  Or worse say some GPL Code was cut as a segment for a help forum and was used from that.  So yes they violated the code, they probably didn't mean too, if you are nice to them they will probably fix it.  If you go all out and make yourself aggressive they will be aggressive too, and put you in a case even if you win you loose.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oddly enough most companies even the Evil Microsoft will much rather fix the problem without having to fight it legally , and resolve the problem civilly .
When you pre-poster aggressive towards your opponent they will do the same .
And if you are Not for Profit organization and you opponent is a big multi-national company , you are going to be in for a big fight where if you were just to be polite and civil about it chances are you will get your objectives , they will quietly fix their problems and save face .
Most of the time these GPL violations are not done deliberately but the GPL is a strict license and for a big company you will have people putting in things that they did n't even realize was wrong .
Or worse say some GPL Code was cut as a segment for a help forum and was used from that .
So yes they violated the code , they probably did n't mean too , if you are nice to them they will probably fix it .
If you go all out and make yourself aggressive they will be aggressive too , and put you in a case even if you win you loose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oddly enough most companies even the Evil Microsoft will much rather fix the problem without having to fight it legally, and resolve the problem civilly.
When you pre-poster aggressive towards your opponent they will do the same.
And if you are Not for Profit organization and you opponent is a big multi-national company, you are going to be in for a big fight where if you were just to be polite and civil about it chances are you will get your objectives, they will quietly fix their problems and save face.
Most of the time these GPL violations are not done deliberately but the GPL is a strict license and for a big company you will have people putting in things that they didn't even realize was wrong.
Or worse say some GPL Code was cut as a segment for a help forum and was used from that.
So yes they violated the code, they probably didn't mean too, if you are nice to them they will probably fix it.
If you go all out and make yourself aggressive they will be aggressive too, and put you in a case even if you win you loose.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30049844</id>
	<title>Re:Behind the scenes or not</title>
	<author>Rhacman</author>
	<datestamp>1257884400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I tend to agree and I think that there is a place for both GPL and no strings attached code.  The intent of the GPL is to encourage other developers to contribute to the open source community without furthering the ends of closed-source commercial or other proprietary endeavors.  The problem stems from people not realising that the GPL comes with an agenda attached.  Personally I prefer the MIT (X11) licence both for code I use and code I write.  My aim would be to know that I produced something that helped someone out.  The GPL aim is to encourage people to release source code they otherwise may not have and to give people alternatives to closed source software.  I think both aims are admirable but distinct from one another.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I tend to agree and I think that there is a place for both GPL and no strings attached code .
The intent of the GPL is to encourage other developers to contribute to the open source community without furthering the ends of closed-source commercial or other proprietary endeavors .
The problem stems from people not realising that the GPL comes with an agenda attached .
Personally I prefer the MIT ( X11 ) licence both for code I use and code I write .
My aim would be to know that I produced something that helped someone out .
The GPL aim is to encourage people to release source code they otherwise may not have and to give people alternatives to closed source software .
I think both aims are admirable but distinct from one another .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I tend to agree and I think that there is a place for both GPL and no strings attached code.
The intent of the GPL is to encourage other developers to contribute to the open source community without furthering the ends of closed-source commercial or other proprietary endeavors.
The problem stems from people not realising that the GPL comes with an agenda attached.
Personally I prefer the MIT (X11) licence both for code I use and code I write.
My aim would be to know that I produced something that helped someone out.
The GPL aim is to encourage people to release source code they otherwise may not have and to give people alternatives to closed source software.
I think both aims are admirable but distinct from one another.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30047950</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30047588</id>
	<title>Re:Behind the scenes or not</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257876420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Making your software "free" and then fighting people <b>using</b> it with legal pressure, eh?</i></p><p>Given that the GPL puts no restrictions on *use* you obviously don't know what you're talking about.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Making your software " free " and then fighting people using it with legal pressure , eh ? Given that the GPL puts no restrictions on * use * you obviously do n't know what you 're talking about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Making your software "free" and then fighting people using it with legal pressure, eh?Given that the GPL puts no restrictions on *use* you obviously don't know what you're talking about.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30046560</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30048840</id>
	<title>Re:Behind the scenes or not</title>
	<author>sirsnork</author>
	<datestamp>1257880500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Surely you would suggest they grab a public domain compiler given your stance on the GPL?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Surely you would suggest they grab a public domain compiler given your stance on the GPL ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Surely you would suggest they grab a public domain compiler given your stance on the GPL?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30048162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30046942</id>
	<title>Re:Ah yes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257874260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Same people? Prove it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Same people ?
Prove it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Same people?
Prove it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30046740</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30049520</id>
	<title>Re:Going to court and going public</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257883080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The truth is that going public is useless with GPL violations because the kind of people who care are completely ineffectual misanthropes who have retreated to insular internet circlejerks in the absence of any real human contact.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The truth is that going public is useless with GPL violations because the kind of people who care are completely ineffectual misanthropes who have retreated to insular internet circlejerks in the absence of any real human contact .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The truth is that going public is useless with GPL violations because the kind of people who care are completely ineffectual misanthropes who have retreated to insular internet circlejerks in the absence of any real human contact.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30046650</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30047010</id>
	<title>Re:Ah yes</title>
	<author>MobileTatsu-NJG</author>
	<datestamp>1257874440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Ah yes, another one of these stories. Expect to see some references to M$, people defending GPL and people advocating BSD. All in all, everyone will agree that respecting open source licenses is very important. Next thread, something about RIAA, same people demanding their right to download copyrighted music.</p><p>Pathetic.</p></div><p>Result of proper GPL usage:  More software for the public to use.</p><p>Result of copyright abuse:  Less content in the public domain.</p><p>One is about the world that is, the other is about the world that should be.  What's pathetic is the lack of understanding you have of the people you're criticizing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah yes , another one of these stories .
Expect to see some references to M $ , people defending GPL and people advocating BSD .
All in all , everyone will agree that respecting open source licenses is very important .
Next thread , something about RIAA , same people demanding their right to download copyrighted music.Pathetic.Result of proper GPL usage : More software for the public to use.Result of copyright abuse : Less content in the public domain.One is about the world that is , the other is about the world that should be .
What 's pathetic is the lack of understanding you have of the people you 're criticizing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah yes, another one of these stories.
Expect to see some references to M$, people defending GPL and people advocating BSD.
All in all, everyone will agree that respecting open source licenses is very important.
Next thread, something about RIAA, same people demanding their right to download copyrighted music.Pathetic.Result of proper GPL usage:  More software for the public to use.Result of copyright abuse:  Less content in the public domain.One is about the world that is, the other is about the world that should be.
What's pathetic is the lack of understanding you have of the people you're criticizing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30046740</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30049570</id>
	<title>Re:Lets be civilized people.</title>
	<author>WNight</author>
	<datestamp>1257883320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's all bullshit.</p><p>You've got the premise the GPL is a strict license and that it's easy to accidently infringe - as if code just teleports into your project.</p><p>It's pretty hard to accidentally infringe. You have to go get someone else's code and stick it in your project. If you don't paste any external code into yours, you're 100\% safe!</p><p>But all copyrighted source is this way. You can't just release something you didn't write, at least without asking permission for it and appeasing the author. The GPL is far less strict, offering you that ability up front and requiring only one thing - that you not close the source.</p><p>One thing the GPL is, is a greed detector. The people who bristle about not being able to use GPLed code are greedy useless people. For them hording is so important they can't understand not hording source from their users, but at the same time they get incensed about the 'non-freedom' of the GPL because they see it as preventing their use of the code. It's pretty funny really.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's all bullshit.You 've got the premise the GPL is a strict license and that it 's easy to accidently infringe - as if code just teleports into your project.It 's pretty hard to accidentally infringe .
You have to go get someone else 's code and stick it in your project .
If you do n't paste any external code into yours , you 're 100 \ % safe ! But all copyrighted source is this way .
You ca n't just release something you did n't write , at least without asking permission for it and appeasing the author .
The GPL is far less strict , offering you that ability up front and requiring only one thing - that you not close the source.One thing the GPL is , is a greed detector .
The people who bristle about not being able to use GPLed code are greedy useless people .
For them hording is so important they ca n't understand not hording source from their users , but at the same time they get incensed about the 'non-freedom ' of the GPL because they see it as preventing their use of the code .
It 's pretty funny really .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's all bullshit.You've got the premise the GPL is a strict license and that it's easy to accidently infringe - as if code just teleports into your project.It's pretty hard to accidentally infringe.
You have to go get someone else's code and stick it in your project.
If you don't paste any external code into yours, you're 100\% safe!But all copyrighted source is this way.
You can't just release something you didn't write, at least without asking permission for it and appeasing the author.
The GPL is far less strict, offering you that ability up front and requiring only one thing - that you not close the source.One thing the GPL is, is a greed detector.
The people who bristle about not being able to use GPLed code are greedy useless people.
For them hording is so important they can't understand not hording source from their users, but at the same time they get incensed about the 'non-freedom' of the GPL because they see it as preventing their use of the code.
It's pretty funny really.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30046628</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30049058</id>
	<title>Re:Behind the scenes or not</title>
	<author>WNight</author>
	<datestamp>1257881280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Imagine FTP for instance. It's available, open, and people use it. So someone like MS implements FTP, but closes the source.</p><p>Even if they did go and get FTP source and compile it, it wouldn't work without a ton of tweaking, so they're out the ability to tweak their OS.</p><p>Oh sure, the people who are already uber-coders don't lose. But the users who might have been coders had they had more source available to look at, they lose. As does everyone they could have helped. Not any source helps here, just the source to what they run day-to-day.</p><p>We have cool cars because automotive engineers were able to play around in their cars and invent new things. Ditto software, but only as long as computers aren't locked-down black-boxes.</p><p>I learned to program by reading source that shipped on the system disk of my first computer and you ask how users are hurt by not having source...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Imagine FTP for instance .
It 's available , open , and people use it .
So someone like MS implements FTP , but closes the source.Even if they did go and get FTP source and compile it , it would n't work without a ton of tweaking , so they 're out the ability to tweak their OS.Oh sure , the people who are already uber-coders do n't lose .
But the users who might have been coders had they had more source available to look at , they lose .
As does everyone they could have helped .
Not any source helps here , just the source to what they run day-to-day.We have cool cars because automotive engineers were able to play around in their cars and invent new things .
Ditto software , but only as long as computers are n't locked-down black-boxes.I learned to program by reading source that shipped on the system disk of my first computer and you ask how users are hurt by not having source.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Imagine FTP for instance.
It's available, open, and people use it.
So someone like MS implements FTP, but closes the source.Even if they did go and get FTP source and compile it, it wouldn't work without a ton of tweaking, so they're out the ability to tweak their OS.Oh sure, the people who are already uber-coders don't lose.
But the users who might have been coders had they had more source available to look at, they lose.
As does everyone they could have helped.
Not any source helps here, just the source to what they run day-to-day.We have cool cars because automotive engineers were able to play around in their cars and invent new things.
Ditto software, but only as long as computers aren't locked-down black-boxes.I learned to program by reading source that shipped on the system disk of my first computer and you ask how users are hurt by not having source...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30048162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30047950</id>
	<title>Re:Behind the scenes or not</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257877560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Meh, GPL does not qualify as "free" to me.  There are strings attached that do not allow you to do anything you like with the code.  If someone wants to use my  code in a closed source project, I really don't care.  My code is still out there for others to use.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Meh , GPL does not qualify as " free " to me .
There are strings attached that do not allow you to do anything you like with the code .
If someone wants to use my code in a closed source project , I really do n't care .
My code is still out there for others to use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Meh, GPL does not qualify as "free" to me.
There are strings attached that do not allow you to do anything you like with the code.
If someone wants to use my  code in a closed source project, I really don't care.
My code is still out there for others to use.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30046812</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30049148</id>
	<title>Re:Behind the scenes or not</title>
	<author>Xtifr</author>
	<datestamp>1257881580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seconded here.  I've been listening to the "debates" for years and years and haven't heard anything new from either side in so long I can't remember.  Lets just short-circuit the whole thing here: BSD fans want to legalize slavery and murder, and GPL fans want to set up communist dictatorships and destroy the world's economy.  As long as someone can "prove" that I'm evil no matter which one I support, I figure I might as well go whole-hog and be totally evil by supporting both, each in their own place.  <i>Ia! Ia! Cthulhu fhtagn!</i><nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seconded here .
I 've been listening to the " debates " for years and years and have n't heard anything new from either side in so long I ca n't remember .
Lets just short-circuit the whole thing here : BSD fans want to legalize slavery and murder , and GPL fans want to set up communist dictatorships and destroy the world 's economy .
As long as someone can " prove " that I 'm evil no matter which one I support , I figure I might as well go whole-hog and be totally evil by supporting both , each in their own place .
Ia ! Ia !
Cthulhu fhtagn !
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seconded here.
I've been listening to the "debates" for years and years and haven't heard anything new from either side in so long I can't remember.
Lets just short-circuit the whole thing here: BSD fans want to legalize slavery and murder, and GPL fans want to set up communist dictatorships and destroy the world's economy.
As long as someone can "prove" that I'm evil no matter which one I support, I figure I might as well go whole-hog and be totally evil by supporting both, each in their own place.
Ia! Ia!
Cthulhu fhtagn!
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30047666</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1540242_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30046942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30046740
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1540242_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30047616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30046560
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1540242_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30050384
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30047010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30046740
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1540242_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30049520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30046650
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1540242_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30049242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30046628
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1540242_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30049570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30046628
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1540242_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30048120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30046850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30046560
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1540242_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30048840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30048162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30046812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30046560
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1540242_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30049170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30048060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30046850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30046560
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1540242_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30050592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30046740
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1540242_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30049148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30047666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30046560
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1540242_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30060952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30049850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30047950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30046812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30046560
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1540242_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30049844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30047950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30046812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30046560
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1540242_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30049794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30047666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30046560
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1540242_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30050696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30046560
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1540242_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30052344
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30047666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30046560
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1540242_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30047992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30046850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30046560
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1540242_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30048294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30046628
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1540242_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30048866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30048014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30046812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30046560
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1540242_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30048798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30046740
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1540242_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30047712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30046740
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1540242_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30053264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30049058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30048162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30046812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30046560
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1540242_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30050644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30046560
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1540242_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30047588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30046560
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_1540242.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30046560
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30050644
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30047616
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30047588
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30050696
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30047666
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30052344
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30049148
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30049794
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30046812
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30048014
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30048866
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30047950
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30049844
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30049850
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30060952
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30048162
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30049058
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30053264
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30048840
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30046850
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30047992
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30048060
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30049170
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30048120
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_1540242.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30046650
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30049520
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_1540242.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30046740
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30048798
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30047010
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30050384
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30050592
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30047712
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30046942
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_1540242.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30046628
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30049570
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30049242
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30048294
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_1540242.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1540242.30046512
</commentlist>
</conversation>
