<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_11_0252256</id>
	<title>MS Pulls Windows 7 Tool After GPL Violation Claim</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1257966960000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Sam notes an Ars story on <a href="http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/11/microsoft-pulls-windows-7-tool-after-gpl-violation-claims.ars">Microsoft pulling the Windows 7 USB/DVD Download Tool</a> from the Microsoft Store website after a report indicating that the tool <a href="//tech.slashdot.org/story/09/11/07/1547214/Did-Microsoft-Borrow-GPL-Code-For-a-Windows-7-Utility">incorporated open source code</a> in a way that violated the GNU's General Public License. Whether the software giant is actually violating the GPL, a widely used (including by the Linux kernel) free software license, is not confirmed. "We are currently taking down the Windows USB/DVD Tool from the Microsoft Store site until our review of the tool is complete," a Microsoft spokesperson told Ars. The fact the company pulled the tool doesn't bode well, so we'll have to watch closely to see what the company puts back on its servers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sam notes an Ars story on Microsoft pulling the Windows 7 USB/DVD Download Tool from the Microsoft Store website after a report indicating that the tool incorporated open source code in a way that violated the GNU 's General Public License .
Whether the software giant is actually violating the GPL , a widely used ( including by the Linux kernel ) free software license , is not confirmed .
" We are currently taking down the Windows USB/DVD Tool from the Microsoft Store site until our review of the tool is complete , " a Microsoft spokesperson told Ars .
The fact the company pulled the tool does n't bode well , so we 'll have to watch closely to see what the company puts back on its servers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sam notes an Ars story on Microsoft pulling the Windows 7 USB/DVD Download Tool from the Microsoft Store website after a report indicating that the tool incorporated open source code in a way that violated the GNU's General Public License.
Whether the software giant is actually violating the GPL, a widely used (including by the Linux kernel) free software license, is not confirmed.
"We are currently taking down the Windows USB/DVD Tool from the Microsoft Store site until our review of the tool is complete," a Microsoft spokesperson told Ars.
The fact the company pulled the tool doesn't bode well, so we'll have to watch closely to see what the company puts back on its servers.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30057364</id>
	<title>more info</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257108900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>A friend of mine works at the borg.  He's a penguin at heart and generally a good guy. This is what he told me.  I believe him, but you can make up your own mind.  There is/was a GPL violation, but MS didn't do it directly. They licensed some code from a third party.  The third party was responsible for the GPL violation (they licensed the GPL code under a non-GPL license).</htmltext>
<tokenext>A friend of mine works at the borg .
He 's a penguin at heart and generally a good guy .
This is what he told me .
I believe him , but you can make up your own mind .
There is/was a GPL violation , but MS did n't do it directly .
They licensed some code from a third party .
The third party was responsible for the GPL violation ( they licensed the GPL code under a non-GPL license ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A friend of mine works at the borg.
He's a penguin at heart and generally a good guy.
This is what he told me.
I believe him, but you can make up your own mind.
There is/was a GPL violation, but MS didn't do it directly.
They licensed some code from a third party.
The third party was responsible for the GPL violation (they licensed the GPL code under a non-GPL license).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30061178</id>
	<title>Slashdot editors are worthless and stupid</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257094980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and their only function is mashing "ACCEPT" on whatever piece of poorly-written, poorly-researched biased bullshit happens to shine brightly enough to catch their dim little eyes.</p><p>This place is a joke, and since most of the users are also braindead the only good thing about Slashdot is providing a fun place for trolling.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and their only function is mashing " ACCEPT " on whatever piece of poorly-written , poorly-researched biased bullshit happens to shine brightly enough to catch their dim little eyes.This place is a joke , and since most of the users are also braindead the only good thing about Slashdot is providing a fun place for trolling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and their only function is mashing "ACCEPT" on whatever piece of poorly-written, poorly-researched biased bullshit happens to shine brightly enough to catch their dim little eyes.This place is a joke, and since most of the users are also braindead the only good thing about Slashdot is providing a fun place for trolling.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30057198</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30059286</id>
	<title>Re:Seriously, preview your own posting editors!</title>
	<author>dkleinsc</author>
	<datestamp>1257086640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ahh, you said the word the Knights who say Ni cannot hear!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ahh , you said the word the Knights who say Ni can not hear !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ahh, you said the word the Knights who say Ni cannot hear!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30057198</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30059074</id>
	<title>Re:Defining GPL?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257085020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>the GPL, a widely used (including by the Linux kernel) free software license</p></div><p>Good thing they cleared that up. I never would've known what the GPL is without this explanation.</p></div><p>I wonder if its time to stop referring to the GPL as a "widely used free software license" and refer to it as "THE most widely used software license".</p><p>A combination of</p><p><a href="http://www.dwheeler.com/sloc/" title="dwheeler.com">http://www.dwheeler.com/sloc/</a> [dwheeler.com]</p><p>and</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source\_lines\_of\_code" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source\_lines\_of\_code</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>would seem to indicate "around 180 million LOC in Debian" vs maybe 50 MLOC for windows.  Not everything is in Debian (believe it or not) and not everything MS is in Windows, but everything else that is MS licensed probably doesn't add up to more than 3 times the size of windows...  Also, some stuff in MS products is BSD licensed and has to be subtracted.</p><p>The number of lines of GPL licensed code is probably larger than any other license, free or nonfree...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the GPL , a widely used ( including by the Linux kernel ) free software licenseGood thing they cleared that up .
I never would 've known what the GPL is without this explanation.I wonder if its time to stop referring to the GPL as a " widely used free software license " and refer to it as " THE most widely used software license " .A combination ofhttp : //www.dwheeler.com/sloc/ [ dwheeler.com ] andhttp : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source \ _lines \ _of \ _code [ wikipedia.org ] would seem to indicate " around 180 million LOC in Debian " vs maybe 50 MLOC for windows .
Not everything is in Debian ( believe it or not ) and not everything MS is in Windows , but everything else that is MS licensed probably does n't add up to more than 3 times the size of windows... Also , some stuff in MS products is BSD licensed and has to be subtracted.The number of lines of GPL licensed code is probably larger than any other license , free or nonfree.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the GPL, a widely used (including by the Linux kernel) free software licenseGood thing they cleared that up.
I never would've known what the GPL is without this explanation.I wonder if its time to stop referring to the GPL as a "widely used free software license" and refer to it as "THE most widely used software license".A combination ofhttp://www.dwheeler.com/sloc/ [dwheeler.com]andhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source\_lines\_of\_code [wikipedia.org]would seem to indicate "around 180 million LOC in Debian" vs maybe 50 MLOC for windows.
Not everything is in Debian (believe it or not) and not everything MS is in Windows, but everything else that is MS licensed probably doesn't add up to more than 3 times the size of windows...  Also, some stuff in MS products is BSD licensed and has to be subtracted.The number of lines of GPL licensed code is probably larger than any other license, free or nonfree...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30057546</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30057656</id>
	<title>!doesn't bode well</title>
	<author>jamesh</author>
	<datestamp>1257069240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think taking the software down is a very boding/bodeable/bodeful/whatever thing to do. I wouldn't expect anything else unless they had concrete proof that there was absolutely no chance at all that there was even the remote possibility of a GPL violation, and unless the software was developed completely in house and the claim of GPL violation was made with no evidence at all they can't be sure of that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think taking the software down is a very boding/bodeable/bodeful/whatever thing to do .
I would n't expect anything else unless they had concrete proof that there was absolutely no chance at all that there was even the remote possibility of a GPL violation , and unless the software was developed completely in house and the claim of GPL violation was made with no evidence at all they ca n't be sure of that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think taking the software down is a very boding/bodeable/bodeful/whatever thing to do.
I wouldn't expect anything else unless they had concrete proof that there was absolutely no chance at all that there was even the remote possibility of a GPL violation, and unless the software was developed completely in house and the claim of GPL violation was made with no evidence at all they can't be sure of that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30057974</id>
	<title>Re:more info</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257073560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I worked once for a company where I was ask for a common stack implementation that would be ready to be used, I recomended to modify a BSD implementation instead of developing it ourselves from scratch or to buy one from a third party.<br>Answer was "no no no, no free code in our software". I tried to explain the various free licenses policy that are currently used and to describe avantages of the BSD one, but finally my employer of that time decided to buy the stack it needed from a third party.</p><p>So we received the stack sources from said third party, which were from the BSD one I recommanded in the first place.<br>It is in fact quite common for a software producer who have to put its name over a piece of code to prefer to buy every pieces of code it does not produce itself rather than directly borrow and adapt it from the adequate license.<br>Sometimes third parties are kind enough to really implement required code themselves or to at least borrow it from the right license for the job, sometimes they are not.</p><p>If you want to make money in embedded software, for instance, just take every BSD implemented stacks, like TCP/IP, FTP, SNMP, adapt them to embedded use then just build a minimal company to sell them once properly tested over different architectures, finally, sell them to companies that produced embedded software. Such a stack can be sold between 50000 and 100000 euros, that corresponds more or less to the third of what a software engineer whould cost to the buyer to produce the stack itself, not to mention the time it would take.<br>Then if in your day job someone ask you about a such a stack, kindly indicate her/him the appropriate company which sells it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I worked once for a company where I was ask for a common stack implementation that would be ready to be used , I recomended to modify a BSD implementation instead of developing it ourselves from scratch or to buy one from a third party.Answer was " no no no , no free code in our software " .
I tried to explain the various free licenses policy that are currently used and to describe avantages of the BSD one , but finally my employer of that time decided to buy the stack it needed from a third party.So we received the stack sources from said third party , which were from the BSD one I recommanded in the first place.It is in fact quite common for a software producer who have to put its name over a piece of code to prefer to buy every pieces of code it does not produce itself rather than directly borrow and adapt it from the adequate license.Sometimes third parties are kind enough to really implement required code themselves or to at least borrow it from the right license for the job , sometimes they are not.If you want to make money in embedded software , for instance , just take every BSD implemented stacks , like TCP/IP , FTP , SNMP , adapt them to embedded use then just build a minimal company to sell them once properly tested over different architectures , finally , sell them to companies that produced embedded software .
Such a stack can be sold between 50000 and 100000 euros , that corresponds more or less to the third of what a software engineer whould cost to the buyer to produce the stack itself , not to mention the time it would take.Then if in your day job someone ask you about a such a stack , kindly indicate her/him the appropriate company which sells it ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I worked once for a company where I was ask for a common stack implementation that would be ready to be used, I recomended to modify a BSD implementation instead of developing it ourselves from scratch or to buy one from a third party.Answer was "no no no, no free code in our software".
I tried to explain the various free licenses policy that are currently used and to describe avantages of the BSD one, but finally my employer of that time decided to buy the stack it needed from a third party.So we received the stack sources from said third party, which were from the BSD one I recommanded in the first place.It is in fact quite common for a software producer who have to put its name over a piece of code to prefer to buy every pieces of code it does not produce itself rather than directly borrow and adapt it from the adequate license.Sometimes third parties are kind enough to really implement required code themselves or to at least borrow it from the right license for the job, sometimes they are not.If you want to make money in embedded software, for instance, just take every BSD implemented stacks, like TCP/IP, FTP, SNMP, adapt them to embedded use then just build a minimal company to sell them once properly tested over different architectures, finally, sell them to companies that produced embedded software.
Such a stack can be sold between 50000 and 100000 euros, that corresponds more or less to the third of what a software engineer whould cost to the buyer to produce the stack itself, not to mention the time it would take.Then if in your day job someone ask you about a such a stack, kindly indicate her/him the appropriate company which sells it ;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30057364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30081574</id>
	<title>Re:!doesn't bode well</title>
	<author>bill\_mcgonigle</author>
	<datestamp>1258031040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I think taking the software down is a very boding/bodeable/bodeful/whatever thing to do. I wouldn't expect anything else unless they had concrete proof that there was absolutely no chance at all that there was even the remote possibility of a GPL violation, and unless the software was developed completely in house and the claim of GPL violation was made with no evidence at all they can't be sure of that.</i></p><p>I've matched several byte strings in IE7 to byte strings in GPL'ed software.  So far I've found at least '0001', 'A3B5', and '17B4'.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:waits hopefuly:</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think taking the software down is a very boding/bodeable/bodeful/whatever thing to do .
I would n't expect anything else unless they had concrete proof that there was absolutely no chance at all that there was even the remote possibility of a GPL violation , and unless the software was developed completely in house and the claim of GPL violation was made with no evidence at all they ca n't be sure of that.I 've matched several byte strings in IE7 to byte strings in GPL'ed software .
So far I 've found at least '0001 ' , 'A3B5 ' , and '17B4' .
: waits hopefuly :</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think taking the software down is a very boding/bodeable/bodeful/whatever thing to do.
I wouldn't expect anything else unless they had concrete proof that there was absolutely no chance at all that there was even the remote possibility of a GPL violation, and unless the software was developed completely in house and the claim of GPL violation was made with no evidence at all they can't be sure of that.I've matched several byte strings in IE7 to byte strings in GPL'ed software.
So far I've found at least '0001', 'A3B5', and '17B4'.
:waits hopefuly:</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30057656</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30057586</id>
	<title>What if it IS a GPL violation part II?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257068340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What if it is a GPL violation and microsoft just comes out and says "ya, plenty of GPL'd code in there.  We just took it and used it."</p><p>Who, exactly, sues them in this case?</p><p>Seriously - I don't understand the answer to this question.  Somebody please explain it to me.</p><p>I have a very strong intuition that GPL'd code is used every day by all sorts of software places, including a lot of embedded developers who simply think that the GPL is a toothless naive nothing of a license.  Red hat and many others seem to have built multi-billion dollar businesses on brightlining the GPL.  Can somebody explain to me how the GPL is NOT actually toothless, other than the teeth of potential derision on slashdot?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What if it is a GPL violation and microsoft just comes out and says " ya , plenty of GPL 'd code in there .
We just took it and used it .
" Who , exactly , sues them in this case ? Seriously - I do n't understand the answer to this question .
Somebody please explain it to me.I have a very strong intuition that GPL 'd code is used every day by all sorts of software places , including a lot of embedded developers who simply think that the GPL is a toothless naive nothing of a license .
Red hat and many others seem to have built multi-billion dollar businesses on brightlining the GPL .
Can somebody explain to me how the GPL is NOT actually toothless , other than the teeth of potential derision on slashdot ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What if it is a GPL violation and microsoft just comes out and says "ya, plenty of GPL'd code in there.
We just took it and used it.
"Who, exactly, sues them in this case?Seriously - I don't understand the answer to this question.
Somebody please explain it to me.I have a very strong intuition that GPL'd code is used every day by all sorts of software places, including a lot of embedded developers who simply think that the GPL is a toothless naive nothing of a license.
Red hat and many others seem to have built multi-billion dollar businesses on brightlining the GPL.
Can somebody explain to me how the GPL is NOT actually toothless, other than the teeth of potential derision on slashdot?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30057816</id>
	<title>Re:What if it IS a GPL violation part II?</title>
	<author>lordandmaker</author>
	<datestamp>1257071340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Who, exactly, sues them in this case?</p></div>
</blockquote><p>

In theory, the author(s) of the code. In practice, they'd likely hand it over to the FSF who exist partly for the protection of GPL'd code.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who , exactly , sues them in this case ?
In theory , the author ( s ) of the code .
In practice , they 'd likely hand it over to the FSF who exist partly for the protection of GPL 'd code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who, exactly, sues them in this case?
In theory, the author(s) of the code.
In practice, they'd likely hand it over to the FSF who exist partly for the protection of GPL'd code.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30057586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30064052</id>
	<title>Re:Seriously, preview your own posting editors!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257106260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Seriously, preview your story summaries editors!</p><p>"...so we'll have to watch closely to see what the company puts it back on its servers."</p><p>Who thinks that "it" makes sense?</p></div><p>So you think they stopped talking about the Windows USB/DVD Tool from the Microsoft Store when they said "it" get real grammar nazi.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , preview your story summaries editors !
" ...so we 'll have to watch closely to see what the company puts it back on its servers .
" Who thinks that " it " makes sense ? So you think they stopped talking about the Windows USB/DVD Tool from the Microsoft Store when they said " it " get real grammar nazi .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, preview your story summaries editors!
"...so we'll have to watch closely to see what the company puts it back on its servers.
"Who thinks that "it" makes sense?So you think they stopped talking about the Windows USB/DVD Tool from the Microsoft Store when they said "it" get real grammar nazi.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30057198</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30058072</id>
	<title>Re:What if it IS a violation?</title>
	<author>Registered Coward v2</author>
	<datestamp>1257074520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What if it IS a GPL violation?</p><p>Will they release the source code?
And if not, if they just replace the GPL parts and release a new version, will people who downloaded the first version be legally able to demand the source code?</p></div><p>I doubt that.  Replacing the GPL'd code ought to be enough; especially if the incorporation was accidental or the result of a third party's actions (as another poster pointed out it may be code they licensed from another company who claimed ownership of the rights.)  I would not want someone to be forced to relseas code for such violations.</p><p>Why? Because it would be a bad precedent - what if someone used copyrighted code without permission in a GPL'd project?  Should everyone who subsequently uses the code be held liable for a copyright violation, or would removing the code in question be enough?  I prefer the later, simply because, IMHO, it a reasonable response in a case where the violation was not deliberate since the code was used in good faith based on the GPL.</p><p>Now, if it was code licensed from a third party, whoever wrote the code in question should be required to release the source, since one could assume they knew using GPL code required compliance with the GPL, and they distributed the derivative work.  IANAL, but I would think MS has a reasonable case to sue based on the damages from the code.</p><p>If MS wrote the code, I still think a company should have the chance to fix a violation, especially if the code snippet is small - where a reasonable argument could be made that it was an unintended violation; unlike the blanket use of a major portion of a GPL'd product.  Again, IANAL, but I think at some point even GPL'd code no longer is considered an original copyrighted work; much in the same way that a few words or sentence from one work that is incorporated in another is a copyright violation.  YMMV on that concept.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What if it IS a GPL violation ? Will they release the source code ?
And if not , if they just replace the GPL parts and release a new version , will people who downloaded the first version be legally able to demand the source code ? I doubt that .
Replacing the GPL 'd code ought to be enough ; especially if the incorporation was accidental or the result of a third party 's actions ( as another poster pointed out it may be code they licensed from another company who claimed ownership of the rights .
) I would not want someone to be forced to relseas code for such violations.Why ?
Because it would be a bad precedent - what if someone used copyrighted code without permission in a GPL 'd project ?
Should everyone who subsequently uses the code be held liable for a copyright violation , or would removing the code in question be enough ?
I prefer the later , simply because , IMHO , it a reasonable response in a case where the violation was not deliberate since the code was used in good faith based on the GPL.Now , if it was code licensed from a third party , whoever wrote the code in question should be required to release the source , since one could assume they knew using GPL code required compliance with the GPL , and they distributed the derivative work .
IANAL , but I would think MS has a reasonable case to sue based on the damages from the code.If MS wrote the code , I still think a company should have the chance to fix a violation , especially if the code snippet is small - where a reasonable argument could be made that it was an unintended violation ; unlike the blanket use of a major portion of a GPL 'd product .
Again , IANAL , but I think at some point even GPL 'd code no longer is considered an original copyrighted work ; much in the same way that a few words or sentence from one work that is incorporated in another is a copyright violation .
YMMV on that concept .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What if it IS a GPL violation?Will they release the source code?
And if not, if they just replace the GPL parts and release a new version, will people who downloaded the first version be legally able to demand the source code?I doubt that.
Replacing the GPL'd code ought to be enough; especially if the incorporation was accidental or the result of a third party's actions (as another poster pointed out it may be code they licensed from another company who claimed ownership of the rights.
)  I would not want someone to be forced to relseas code for such violations.Why?
Because it would be a bad precedent - what if someone used copyrighted code without permission in a GPL'd project?
Should everyone who subsequently uses the code be held liable for a copyright violation, or would removing the code in question be enough?
I prefer the later, simply because, IMHO, it a reasonable response in a case where the violation was not deliberate since the code was used in good faith based on the GPL.Now, if it was code licensed from a third party, whoever wrote the code in question should be required to release the source, since one could assume they knew using GPL code required compliance with the GPL, and they distributed the derivative work.
IANAL, but I would think MS has a reasonable case to sue based on the damages from the code.If MS wrote the code, I still think a company should have the chance to fix a violation, especially if the code snippet is small - where a reasonable argument could be made that it was an unintended violation; unlike the blanket use of a major portion of a GPL'd product.
Again, IANAL, but I think at some point even GPL'd code no longer is considered an original copyrighted work; much in the same way that a few words or sentence from one work that is incorporated in another is a copyright violation.
YMMV on that concept.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30057406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30057268</id>
	<title>Re:So, this is about as damning as you get, isn't</title>
	<author>tokul</author>
	<datestamp>1257107760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>MS is practically saying, "Oops, we violated the GPL!"</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Marketing would say "those coomies are ruining our business"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>MS is practically saying , " Oops , we violated the GPL !
" Marketing would say " those coomies are ruining our business "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MS is practically saying, "Oops, we violated the GPL!
"

Marketing would say "those coomies are ruining our business"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30057182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30059390</id>
	<title>Re:Seriously, preview your own posting editors!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257087360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Seriously, preview your story summaries editors!</p><p>"...so we'll have to watch closely to see what the company puts it back on its servers."</p><p>Who thinks that "it" makes sense?</p></div><p>They were going to but, unfortunately, kdawson's summary review program has been in violation of the GPL for years. He just has to wing it.</p><p>You can't fault a guy for not doing his job, can ya?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , preview your story summaries editors !
" ...so we 'll have to watch closely to see what the company puts it back on its servers .
" Who thinks that " it " makes sense ? They were going to but , unfortunately , kdawson 's summary review program has been in violation of the GPL for years .
He just has to wing it.You ca n't fault a guy for not doing his job , can ya ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, preview your story summaries editors!
"...so we'll have to watch closely to see what the company puts it back on its servers.
"Who thinks that "it" makes sense?They were going to but, unfortunately, kdawson's summary review program has been in violation of the GPL for years.
He just has to wing it.You can't fault a guy for not doing his job, can ya?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30057198</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30058166</id>
	<title>Re:What if it IS a violation?</title>
	<author>Rogerborg</author>
	<datestamp>1257075420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>will people who downloaded the first version be legally able to demand the source code</p></div></blockquote><p>Depends on the jurisdiction.  Third world communist hellholes like Germany and France have whack copyright laws, but in the USA, only the copyright holder has a legal stick to wield.  All recipients can do is to rat out the distributor to the rights holder.  All together now: the GPL is explicitly a license from the rights holder, not a contract between them and the distributor, or between the distributor and the recipient.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>will people who downloaded the first version be legally able to demand the source codeDepends on the jurisdiction .
Third world communist hellholes like Germany and France have whack copyright laws , but in the USA , only the copyright holder has a legal stick to wield .
All recipients can do is to rat out the distributor to the rights holder .
All together now : the GPL is explicitly a license from the rights holder , not a contract between them and the distributor , or between the distributor and the recipient .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>will people who downloaded the first version be legally able to demand the source codeDepends on the jurisdiction.
Third world communist hellholes like Germany and France have whack copyright laws, but in the USA, only the copyright holder has a legal stick to wield.
All recipients can do is to rat out the distributor to the rights holder.
All together now: the GPL is explicitly a license from the rights holder, not a contract between them and the distributor, or between the distributor and the recipient.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30057406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30057244</id>
	<title>Re:So, this is about as damning as you get, isn't</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257107460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Right... or they are being smart, pulling the tool, and investigating whether they are violating the GPL.  Like they said.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>It was a "Jump to Conclusions" mat. You see, it would be this mat that you would put on the floor... and would have different CONCLUSIONS written on it that you could JUMP TO.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Right... or they are being smart , pulling the tool , and investigating whether they are violating the GPL .
Like they said.It was a " Jump to Conclusions " mat .
You see , it would be this mat that you would put on the floor... and would have different CONCLUSIONS written on it that you could JUMP TO .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right... or they are being smart, pulling the tool, and investigating whether they are violating the GPL.
Like they said.It was a "Jump to Conclusions" mat.
You see, it would be this mat that you would put on the floor... and would have different CONCLUSIONS written on it that you could JUMP TO.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30057182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30057716</id>
	<title>Re:What if it IS a GPL violation part II?</title>
	<author>mixmatch</author>
	<datestamp>1257069900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>That would be the Free Software Foundation ( <a href="http://www.fsf.org/licensing" title="fsf.org">http://www.fsf.org/licensing</a> [fsf.org] ).<p><div class="quote"><p>The Compliance Lab has been an informal activity of the FSF since 1992 and was formalized in December 2001. We handle all licensing-related issues for FSF. We serve the free software community by providing the public with a "knowledge infrastructure" surrounding the GNU GPL and free software licensing, and enforcing the license on FSF-copyrighted software.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That would be the Free Software Foundation ( http : //www.fsf.org/licensing [ fsf.org ] ) .The Compliance Lab has been an informal activity of the FSF since 1992 and was formalized in December 2001 .
We handle all licensing-related issues for FSF .
We serve the free software community by providing the public with a " knowledge infrastructure " surrounding the GNU GPL and free software licensing , and enforcing the license on FSF-copyrighted software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That would be the Free Software Foundation ( http://www.fsf.org/licensing [fsf.org] ).The Compliance Lab has been an informal activity of the FSF since 1992 and was formalized in December 2001.
We handle all licensing-related issues for FSF.
We serve the free software community by providing the public with a "knowledge infrastructure" surrounding the GNU GPL and free software licensing, and enforcing the license on FSF-copyrighted software.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30057586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30057598</id>
	<title>This might be a double-edged sword</title>
	<author>Chousuke</author>
	<datestamp>1257068460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It worries me that this case has already been brought to the open.</p><p>In the previous post there were comments about contacting companies in private first and see if the problem could be solved, so that no undue negative publicity would be generated.</p><p>If this turns out to have been a false alarm, it won't reflect well on the GPL nor its proponents, and might even make more businesses wary of GPL code.</p><p>It would be interesting to see an account of the GPL violations that have been handled discreetly out of the public eye, if only to show that not everyone will be publicly shamed and vilified for breaking the licence, if they just remain cooperative.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It worries me that this case has already been brought to the open.In the previous post there were comments about contacting companies in private first and see if the problem could be solved , so that no undue negative publicity would be generated.If this turns out to have been a false alarm , it wo n't reflect well on the GPL nor its proponents , and might even make more businesses wary of GPL code.It would be interesting to see an account of the GPL violations that have been handled discreetly out of the public eye , if only to show that not everyone will be publicly shamed and vilified for breaking the licence , if they just remain cooperative .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It worries me that this case has already been brought to the open.In the previous post there were comments about contacting companies in private first and see if the problem could be solved, so that no undue negative publicity would be generated.If this turns out to have been a false alarm, it won't reflect well on the GPL nor its proponents, and might even make more businesses wary of GPL code.It would be interesting to see an account of the GPL violations that have been handled discreetly out of the public eye, if only to show that not everyone will be publicly shamed and vilified for breaking the licence, if they just remain cooperative.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30057910</id>
	<title>Re:What if it IS a violation?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257072780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If it is a GPL violation, then Microsoft is guilty of copyright infringement and must pay $150000, because they didn't think of the poor coder whose potential for fame and glory they undermined, depriving him of a live in luxury.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it is a GPL violation , then Microsoft is guilty of copyright infringement and must pay $ 150000 , because they did n't think of the poor coder whose potential for fame and glory they undermined , depriving him of a live in luxury .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it is a GPL violation, then Microsoft is guilty of copyright infringement and must pay $150000, because they didn't think of the poor coder whose potential for fame and glory they undermined, depriving him of a live in luxury.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30057406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30057312</id>
	<title>!Widely used , Widely despised..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257108300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Widely used claim is laughable. The OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of software on the planet is proprietary software (What I mean by software here doesn't include the deluge of hobby projects on sourceforge. I mean professional software.)  Which means.. It isn't infected with the GPL trojan horse. Its a good thing GPL V3 is outright rejected by the Linux devs. Otherwise the usage of Linux would drop to 0.0\% if it was V3 ever used in the kernel.</p><p>BSD = good. GPL = evil.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Widely used claim is laughable .
The OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of software on the planet is proprietary software ( What I mean by software here does n't include the deluge of hobby projects on sourceforge .
I mean professional software .
) Which means.. It is n't infected with the GPL trojan horse .
Its a good thing GPL V3 is outright rejected by the Linux devs .
Otherwise the usage of Linux would drop to 0.0 \ % if it was V3 ever used in the kernel.BSD = good .
GPL = evil .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Widely used claim is laughable.
The OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of software on the planet is proprietary software (What I mean by software here doesn't include the deluge of hobby projects on sourceforge.
I mean professional software.
)  Which means.. It isn't infected with the GPL trojan horse.
Its a good thing GPL V3 is outright rejected by the Linux devs.
Otherwise the usage of Linux would drop to 0.0\% if it was V3 ever used in the kernel.BSD = good.
GPL = evil.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30057210</id>
	<title>No way!</title>
	<author>cjfs</author>
	<datestamp>1257107100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>the GPL, a widely used (including by the Linux kernel) free software license</p></div><p>Woa, woa, woa. Next you'll tell me it wasn't created by Linux Torvalds.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the GPL , a widely used ( including by the Linux kernel ) free software licenseWoa , woa , woa .
Next you 'll tell me it was n't created by Linux Torvalds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the GPL, a widely used (including by the Linux kernel) free software licenseWoa, woa, woa.
Next you'll tell me it wasn't created by Linux Torvalds.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30057224</id>
	<title>Not a bad move</title>
	<author>delta98</author>
	<datestamp>1257107220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>'We are currently taking down the Windows USB/DVD Tool from the Microsoft Store site until our review of the tool is complete,' a Microsoft spokesperson told Ars.
Well at least they are doing something.</htmltext>
<tokenext>'We are currently taking down the Windows USB/DVD Tool from the Microsoft Store site until our review of the tool is complete, ' a Microsoft spokesperson told Ars .
Well at least they are doing something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'We are currently taking down the Windows USB/DVD Tool from the Microsoft Store site until our review of the tool is complete,' a Microsoft spokesperson told Ars.
Well at least they are doing something.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30063150</id>
	<title>Re:more info</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257103200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>who cares?</p><p>GPL violates peoples personal freedom by stealing their work.</p><p>If somebody writes a cool video game and just gives it out with no license.<br>Along comes somebody that uses parts of that work and brands it GPL.</p><p>He has violated that authors work.</p><p>This happens more than you know.</p><p>Monkey boy Richard Stallman decides to play the C note on his piano and sing an opensource song he has violated the rights of the dead guy that orignally decided a pitch vibration of a string<br>was a c note</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>who cares ? GPL violates peoples personal freedom by stealing their work.If somebody writes a cool video game and just gives it out with no license.Along comes somebody that uses parts of that work and brands it GPL.He has violated that authors work.This happens more than you know.Monkey boy Richard Stallman decides to play the C note on his piano and sing an opensource song he has violated the rights of the dead guy that orignally decided a pitch vibration of a stringwas a c note</tokentext>
<sentencetext>who cares?GPL violates peoples personal freedom by stealing their work.If somebody writes a cool video game and just gives it out with no license.Along comes somebody that uses parts of that work and brands it GPL.He has violated that authors work.This happens more than you know.Monkey boy Richard Stallman decides to play the C note on his piano and sing an opensource song he has violated the rights of the dead guy that orignally decided a pitch vibration of a stringwas a c note</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30057364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30057700</id>
	<title>hey beavis...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257069720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>they pulled their tool</p><p>huhuhhuh</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>they pulled their toolhuhuhhuh</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they pulled their toolhuhuhhuh</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30058276</id>
	<title>If anybody wants it before it is gone</title>
	<author>hairyfeet</author>
	<datestamp>1257076620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is currently on <a href="http://majorgeeks.com/Windows\_7\_USBDVD\_Download\_Tool\_d6265.html" title="majorgeeks.com">Major Geeks</a> [majorgeeks.com], but who knows for how long. From the sound of it all it does is make a USB drive bootable like the HP format tool and then copy the ISO files to the drive.</p><p>

 Hell something that simple...why would they need to steal GPL code,unless they got themselves a seriously lazy programmer/contractor?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is currently on Major Geeks [ majorgeeks.com ] , but who knows for how long .
From the sound of it all it does is make a USB drive bootable like the HP format tool and then copy the ISO files to the drive .
Hell something that simple...why would they need to steal GPL code,unless they got themselves a seriously lazy programmer/contractor ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is currently on Major Geeks [majorgeeks.com], but who knows for how long.
From the sound of it all it does is make a USB drive bootable like the HP format tool and then copy the ISO files to the drive.
Hell something that simple...why would they need to steal GPL code,unless they got themselves a seriously lazy programmer/contractor?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30060216</id>
	<title>Re:Excellent example of why MS hates GPL.</title>
	<author>miffo.swe</author>
	<datestamp>1257090960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Have you actually read the Codeplex bylaws and what types of licenses they want? Microsoft is hard at work trying to redefine open source into something completely different than it is today.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you actually read the Codeplex bylaws and what types of licenses they want ?
Microsoft is hard at work trying to redefine open source into something completely different than it is today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you actually read the Codeplex bylaws and what types of licenses they want?
Microsoft is hard at work trying to redefine open source into something completely different than it is today.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30057394</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30057198</id>
	<title>Seriously, preview your own posting editors!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257106920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously, preview your story summaries editors!</p><p>"...so we'll have to watch closely to see what the company puts it back on its servers."</p><p>Who thinks that "it" makes sense?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , preview your story summaries editors !
" ...so we 'll have to watch closely to see what the company puts it back on its servers .
" Who thinks that " it " makes sense ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, preview your story summaries editors!
"...so we'll have to watch closely to see what the company puts it back on its servers.
"Who thinks that "it" makes sense?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30057250</id>
	<title>Who knew...</title>
	<author>Frosty Piss</author>
	<datestamp>1257107580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Whether the software giant is actually violating the GPL, a widely used (including by the Linux kernel) free software license...</p></div><p>Widely used? Really? Who knew...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Whether the software giant is actually violating the GPL , a widely used ( including by the Linux kernel ) free software license...Widely used ?
Really ? Who knew.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whether the software giant is actually violating the GPL, a widely used (including by the Linux kernel) free software license...Widely used?
Really? Who knew...
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30057218</id>
	<title>Excellent example of why MS hates GPL.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257107160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is a very good example of one of the reasons Microsoft hates the GPL so much. GPL makes it difficult to take other peoples hard work without giving anything back, or as in MS case, while doing everything they can to kill open source in general. Microsofts version of open source is that i develop and they take the code, the credit and the ownership. No thanks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a very good example of one of the reasons Microsoft hates the GPL so much .
GPL makes it difficult to take other peoples hard work without giving anything back , or as in MS case , while doing everything they can to kill open source in general .
Microsofts version of open source is that i develop and they take the code , the credit and the ownership .
No thanks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a very good example of one of the reasons Microsoft hates the GPL so much.
GPL makes it difficult to take other peoples hard work without giving anything back, or as in MS case, while doing everything they can to kill open source in general.
Microsofts version of open source is that i develop and they take the code, the credit and the ownership.
No thanks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30057394</id>
	<title>Re:Excellent example of why MS hates GPL.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257066000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Microsofts version of open source is that i develop and they take the code, the credit and the ownership.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Yes, because Microsoft's mode of operation is to steal GPL code and try to claim it's theirs until they get caught, at which point they fess up and pretend it was a mistake. Right... I mean, just look at all the other times they stole GPL code!
<br> <br>
If in fact that tool used GPL code, it was just some lazy or dishonest developer who used a bunch of code from the Internet and pretended it was his. No proprietary software company would let that slide. Yes, that includes the company we all love to hate.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsofts version of open source is that i develop and they take the code , the credit and the ownership .
Yes , because Microsoft 's mode of operation is to steal GPL code and try to claim it 's theirs until they get caught , at which point they fess up and pretend it was a mistake .
Right... I mean , just look at all the other times they stole GPL code !
If in fact that tool used GPL code , it was just some lazy or dishonest developer who used a bunch of code from the Internet and pretended it was his .
No proprietary software company would let that slide .
Yes , that includes the company we all love to hate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsofts version of open source is that i develop and they take the code, the credit and the ownership.
Yes, because Microsoft's mode of operation is to steal GPL code and try to claim it's theirs until they get caught, at which point they fess up and pretend it was a mistake.
Right... I mean, just look at all the other times they stole GPL code!
If in fact that tool used GPL code, it was just some lazy or dishonest developer who used a bunch of code from the Internet and pretended it was his.
No proprietary software company would let that slide.
Yes, that includes the company we all love to hate.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30057218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30059836</id>
	<title>Re:!Widely used , Widely despised..</title>
	<author>jedidiah</author>
	<datestamp>1257089220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ever heard of Oracle?</p><p>They use and even create L/GPL software.</p><p>The GNU toolchain has been widely used on Unix systems since before the creation of Linux.</p><p>This is about more than the "desktop marketshare of Linux".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ever heard of Oracle ? They use and even create L/GPL software.The GNU toolchain has been widely used on Unix systems since before the creation of Linux.This is about more than the " desktop marketshare of Linux " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ever heard of Oracle?They use and even create L/GPL software.The GNU toolchain has been widely used on Unix systems since before the creation of Linux.This is about more than the "desktop marketshare of Linux".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30057312</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30059612</id>
	<title>Re:Seriously, preview your own posting editors!</title>
	<author>unixan</author>
	<datestamp>1257088320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Seriously, preview your story summaries editors!</p><p>"...so we'll have to watch closely to see what the company puts it back on its servers."</p><p>Who thinks that "it" makes sense?</p></div><p>What are you, a Grammar N... <a href="http://xkcd.com/261/" title="xkcd.com" rel="nofollow">dammit</a> [xkcd.com] </p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , preview your story summaries editors !
" ...so we 'll have to watch closely to see what the company puts it back on its servers .
" Who thinks that " it " makes sense ? What are you , a Grammar N... dammit [ xkcd.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, preview your story summaries editors!
"...so we'll have to watch closely to see what the company puts it back on its servers.
"Who thinks that "it" makes sense?What are you, a Grammar N... dammit [xkcd.com] 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30057198</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30057182</id>
	<title>So, this is about as damning as you get, isn't it?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257106680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>MS is practically saying, "Oops, we violated the GPL!" <br>
Oooopsies.</htmltext>
<tokenext>MS is practically saying , " Oops , we violated the GPL !
" Oooopsies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MS is practically saying, "Oops, we violated the GPL!
" 
Oooopsies.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30057550</id>
	<title>Re:Excellent example of why MS hates GPL.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257068040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, I'd generally say that Codeplex is MS's version of the open source community, and it looks like that didn't stop the GPL from doing its thing. Ignoring their somewhat-slimier licences that no one pays attention to these days, the MS version of open source appears to be that the GPL holds true, and they'd rather take it down than have a PR incident starring Microsoft as Emperor Palpatine and Codeplex as the Galactic Senate. Most likely the program was something that developers were passing around the MS offices, as a fork of the original Codeplex project that they felt was more useful. It fell through the cracks enough for someone in a different department to pick it up and say 'hey, this is great!', and it ended up on the 'net without its heritage by accident. There are so few MS products where you can find a list of developers for them--it's not surprising that they'd have trouble tracking the ownership of one little internal tool, either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , I 'd generally say that Codeplex is MS 's version of the open source community , and it looks like that did n't stop the GPL from doing its thing .
Ignoring their somewhat-slimier licences that no one pays attention to these days , the MS version of open source appears to be that the GPL holds true , and they 'd rather take it down than have a PR incident starring Microsoft as Emperor Palpatine and Codeplex as the Galactic Senate .
Most likely the program was something that developers were passing around the MS offices , as a fork of the original Codeplex project that they felt was more useful .
It fell through the cracks enough for someone in a different department to pick it up and say 'hey , this is great !
' , and it ended up on the 'net without its heritage by accident .
There are so few MS products where you can find a list of developers for them--it 's not surprising that they 'd have trouble tracking the ownership of one little internal tool , either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, I'd generally say that Codeplex is MS's version of the open source community, and it looks like that didn't stop the GPL from doing its thing.
Ignoring their somewhat-slimier licences that no one pays attention to these days, the MS version of open source appears to be that the GPL holds true, and they'd rather take it down than have a PR incident starring Microsoft as Emperor Palpatine and Codeplex as the Galactic Senate.
Most likely the program was something that developers were passing around the MS offices, as a fork of the original Codeplex project that they felt was more useful.
It fell through the cracks enough for someone in a different department to pick it up and say 'hey, this is great!
', and it ended up on the 'net without its heritage by accident.
There are so few MS products where you can find a list of developers for them--it's not surprising that they'd have trouble tracking the ownership of one little internal tool, either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30057218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30057710</id>
	<title>My guess</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1257069840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And if not, if they just replace the GPL parts and release a new version, will people who downloaded the first version be legally able to demand the source code?</p></div><p>Here's my guess, but I'm only a lawyer in the armchair sense (i.e. not at all, but I try picking up an understanding of the law).</p><p>If it's found to be a GPL violation, Microsoft has violated the law regarding copyrights.</p><p>It'll be up to the party (or parties) who can sue Microsoft (only the copyright holder?  Only the people who have lost something by MS breaking the (C) law?) to either settle the matter between themselves, or to take it to court and have the matters settled by a judge.</p><p>The FSF's position is that they're usually happy as long as compliance is enforced.  If the FSF has the copyright, you might expect the result to be that MS has to come into compliance with the license, also retroactively (i.e. give source to those already having the binaries in question or a written offer or however the GPL says you can satisfy that obligation).</p><p>If it's not the FSF who's the copyright holder, I don't know.  Someone might be thinking they can get the RIAA-style million-dollar damages, and so refuse all settlements Microsoft are (realistically) going to offer and take them to court.  (I don't think the free software / open source community attracts those kind of people, but then again we're a varied bunch.)</p><p>It all comes down to what the copyright holder can convince Microsoft to do (or convince the system to force Microsoft to do).</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Will [...] cast a shadow [...]?</p></div><p>Yes, but you can't sue people for having shadows<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p><p>It might make people more likely to look here for another GPL violation, but being biased by selective observation doesn't mean your observations are wrong (only your statistics; or rather, your predictions about observations not similarly biased).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And if not , if they just replace the GPL parts and release a new version , will people who downloaded the first version be legally able to demand the source code ? Here 's my guess , but I 'm only a lawyer in the armchair sense ( i.e .
not at all , but I try picking up an understanding of the law ) .If it 's found to be a GPL violation , Microsoft has violated the law regarding copyrights.It 'll be up to the party ( or parties ) who can sue Microsoft ( only the copyright holder ?
Only the people who have lost something by MS breaking the ( C ) law ?
) to either settle the matter between themselves , or to take it to court and have the matters settled by a judge.The FSF 's position is that they 're usually happy as long as compliance is enforced .
If the FSF has the copyright , you might expect the result to be that MS has to come into compliance with the license , also retroactively ( i.e .
give source to those already having the binaries in question or a written offer or however the GPL says you can satisfy that obligation ) .If it 's not the FSF who 's the copyright holder , I do n't know .
Someone might be thinking they can get the RIAA-style million-dollar damages , and so refuse all settlements Microsoft are ( realistically ) going to offer and take them to court .
( I do n't think the free software / open source community attracts those kind of people , but then again we 're a varied bunch .
) It all comes down to what the copyright holder can convince Microsoft to do ( or convince the system to force Microsoft to do ) .Will [ ... ] cast a shadow [ ... ] ? Yes , but you ca n't sue people for having shadows ; - ) It might make people more likely to look here for another GPL violation , but being biased by selective observation does n't mean your observations are wrong ( only your statistics ; or rather , your predictions about observations not similarly biased ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And if not, if they just replace the GPL parts and release a new version, will people who downloaded the first version be legally able to demand the source code?Here's my guess, but I'm only a lawyer in the armchair sense (i.e.
not at all, but I try picking up an understanding of the law).If it's found to be a GPL violation, Microsoft has violated the law regarding copyrights.It'll be up to the party (or parties) who can sue Microsoft (only the copyright holder?
Only the people who have lost something by MS breaking the (C) law?
) to either settle the matter between themselves, or to take it to court and have the matters settled by a judge.The FSF's position is that they're usually happy as long as compliance is enforced.
If the FSF has the copyright, you might expect the result to be that MS has to come into compliance with the license, also retroactively (i.e.
give source to those already having the binaries in question or a written offer or however the GPL says you can satisfy that obligation).If it's not the FSF who's the copyright holder, I don't know.
Someone might be thinking they can get the RIAA-style million-dollar damages, and so refuse all settlements Microsoft are (realistically) going to offer and take them to court.
(I don't think the free software / open source community attracts those kind of people, but then again we're a varied bunch.
)It all comes down to what the copyright holder can convince Microsoft to do (or convince the system to force Microsoft to do).Will [...] cast a shadow [...]?Yes, but you can't sue people for having shadows ;-)It might make people more likely to look here for another GPL violation, but being biased by selective observation doesn't mean your observations are wrong (only your statistics; or rather, your predictions about observations not similarly biased).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30057406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30061334</id>
	<title>Re:more info</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257095760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wait, if they licensed it under a non-GPL license, and then licensed that code to Microsoft, is that even a GPL violation? I wouldn't think so, unless the license given to the unnamed party that licensed the code to Microsoft didn't include the ability to license out derivative code to others, (ie Microsoft). Just because the code is GPL and a license was broken, doesn't mean that it was the GPL that was broken, it could be one of the other licenses that they sold the code under.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait , if they licensed it under a non-GPL license , and then licensed that code to Microsoft , is that even a GPL violation ?
I would n't think so , unless the license given to the unnamed party that licensed the code to Microsoft did n't include the ability to license out derivative code to others , ( ie Microsoft ) .
Just because the code is GPL and a license was broken , does n't mean that it was the GPL that was broken , it could be one of the other licenses that they sold the code under .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait, if they licensed it under a non-GPL license, and then licensed that code to Microsoft, is that even a GPL violation?
I wouldn't think so, unless the license given to the unnamed party that licensed the code to Microsoft didn't include the ability to license out derivative code to others, (ie Microsoft).
Just because the code is GPL and a license was broken, doesn't mean that it was the GPL that was broken, it could be one of the other licenses that they sold the code under.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30057364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30057406</id>
	<title>What if it IS a violation?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257066180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What if it IS a GPL violation?</p><p>Will they release the source code?<br>And if not, if they just replace the GPL parts and release a new version, will people who downloaded the first version be legally able to demand the source code? Will the mere tainting of the code with GPL code cast a shadow on any future releases; "did they really replace the GPL parts or did they just refactor it"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What if it IS a GPL violation ? Will they release the source code ? And if not , if they just replace the GPL parts and release a new version , will people who downloaded the first version be legally able to demand the source code ?
Will the mere tainting of the code with GPL code cast a shadow on any future releases ; " did they really replace the GPL parts or did they just refactor it " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What if it IS a GPL violation?Will they release the source code?And if not, if they just replace the GPL parts and release a new version, will people who downloaded the first version be legally able to demand the source code?
Will the mere tainting of the code with GPL code cast a shadow on any future releases; "did they really replace the GPL parts or did they just refactor it"?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30057986</id>
	<title>Re:What if it IS a violation?</title>
	<author>XaXXon</author>
	<datestamp>1257073680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you can't demand the source code.  It was never offered to you.</p><p>The only thing that can be done is that the copyright holder of the original software could sue.  However, you can't sue for the software to be released, you can only recover monetary damages.</p><p>That's a big thing that people think that you can be forced to release your source code.  The only thing you'll be forced to do is pay money to the copyright holder.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you ca n't demand the source code .
It was never offered to you.The only thing that can be done is that the copyright holder of the original software could sue .
However , you ca n't sue for the software to be released , you can only recover monetary damages.That 's a big thing that people think that you can be forced to release your source code .
The only thing you 'll be forced to do is pay money to the copyright holder .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you can't demand the source code.
It was never offered to you.The only thing that can be done is that the copyright holder of the original software could sue.
However, you can't sue for the software to be released, you can only recover monetary damages.That's a big thing that people think that you can be forced to release your source code.
The only thing you'll be forced to do is pay money to the copyright holder.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30057406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30057546</id>
	<title>Defining GPL?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257067980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>the GPL, a widely used (including by the Linux kernel) free software license</p></div><p>Good thing they cleared that up. I never would've known what the GPL is without this explanation.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the GPL , a widely used ( including by the Linux kernel ) free software licenseGood thing they cleared that up .
I never would 've known what the GPL is without this explanation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the GPL, a widely used (including by the Linux kernel) free software licenseGood thing they cleared that up.
I never would've known what the GPL is without this explanation.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30058320</id>
	<title>Re:No way!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257077280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, it wasn't. It was created by RMS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , it was n't .
It was created by RMS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, it wasn't.
It was created by RMS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30057210</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30058938</id>
	<title>Re:Seriously, preview your own posting editors!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257083640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Gollum..."Precious....wants it back..."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Gollum... " Precious....wants it back... "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gollum..."Precious....wants it back..."</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30057198</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0252256_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30058072
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30057406
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0252256_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30057268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30057182
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0252256_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30059074
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30057546
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0252256_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30057710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30057406
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0252256_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30081574
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30057656
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0252256_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30059286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30057198
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0252256_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30058166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30057406
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0252256_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30059836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30057312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0252256_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30057550
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30057218
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0252256_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30058938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30057198
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0252256_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30061178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30057198
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0252256_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30060216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30057394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30057218
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0252256_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30057244
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30057182
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0252256_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30063150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30057364
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0252256_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30061334
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30057364
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0252256_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30059390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30057198
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0252256_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30057986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30057406
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0252256_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30057816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30057586
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0252256_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30057974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30057364
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0252256_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30057910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30057406
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0252256_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30057716
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30057586
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0252256_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30058320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30057210
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0252256_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30059612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30057198
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0252256_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30064052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30057198
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_0252256.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30057312
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30059836
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_0252256.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30057198
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30061178
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30059286
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30059612
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30058938
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30064052
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30059390
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_0252256.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30058276
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_0252256.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30057406
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30057986
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30057910
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30058166
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30057710
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30058072
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_0252256.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30057700
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_0252256.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30057586
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30057716
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30057816
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_0252256.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30057598
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_0252256.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30057218
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30057550
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30057394
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30060216
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_0252256.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30057210
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30058320
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_0252256.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30057546
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30059074
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_0252256.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30057656
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30081574
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_0252256.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30057182
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30057268
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30057244
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_0252256.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30057364
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30063150
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30061334
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30057974
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_0252256.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0252256.30057224
</commentlist>
</conversation>
