<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_09_2141250</id>
	<title>A Critical Look At Open Licensing For Hardware</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1260352260000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Glyn Moody writes <i>"At a recent Open Hardware Camp in London, it became clear that <a href="http://www.computerworlduk.com/community/blogs/index.cfm?entryid=2688&amp;blogid=14">one of the main obstacles to applying open source principles to hardware</a> was licensing.  For example, should competing big companies be allowed to use their economies of scale to make and sell cheaper products based on open hardware designs developed by small start-ups without payment?  There's also the problem that hacking designs for physical objects like <a href="http://www.riversimple.com/">open source cars</a> may have safety implications, which raises questions about liability.  So what's the best way to address these issues?"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Glyn Moody writes " At a recent Open Hardware Camp in London , it became clear that one of the main obstacles to applying open source principles to hardware was licensing .
For example , should competing big companies be allowed to use their economies of scale to make and sell cheaper products based on open hardware designs developed by small start-ups without payment ?
There 's also the problem that hacking designs for physical objects like open source cars may have safety implications , which raises questions about liability .
So what 's the best way to address these issues ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Glyn Moody writes "At a recent Open Hardware Camp in London, it became clear that one of the main obstacles to applying open source principles to hardware was licensing.
For example, should competing big companies be allowed to use their economies of scale to make and sell cheaper products based on open hardware designs developed by small start-ups without payment?
There's also the problem that hacking designs for physical objects like open source cars may have safety implications, which raises questions about liability.
So what's the best way to address these issues?
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30383218</id>
	<title>Re:It's not a question of open or closed.</title>
	<author>gujo-odori</author>
	<datestamp>1259587140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not necessarily. Let's say I write a program that lets you modify parameters of your car's engine computer and go racing and release it as-is and under the GPL. Or, for even greater "as-as"-ness, give it the sort of disclaimers that would accompany proprietary software sold for the same purpose.</p><p>So, you use my software to re-tune your engine and because of a bug it causes your mixture to go really lean at high RPMS and you burn your pistons the first time you go racing. Good luck suing me. You might try, but it had a big notice that said "WARNING: THIS SOFTWARE MAY DESTROY YOUR ENGINE, BURN YOUR HOUSE, STEAL YOUR CAR, DRINK YOUR LIQUOR FROM YOUR OLD FRUIT JAR, AND EVEN STEP ON YOUR BLUE SUEDE SHOES. USE AT YOUR OWN RISK."</p><p>We get into court. At the earliest opportunity, my lawyer says, "So, this software comes with a warning that it may destroy your engine, yet you used it anyway?"  "Uh, yes."</p><p>Move it to the realm of hardware. I design a car. I release the design under the GPL, or a comparable documentation license, with the usual disclaimers as above, that it might not even work, use at your own risk, intended for use only by professional mechanics or automobile designers, if you build this you may crash and be killed or permanently injured, blahblahblah. You download my design, actually build the car, take it to a test track, and drive it. On your first lap, the wheels come off, you crash, and are crippled for life. You decide to sue me. Problem one is you ignored all disclaimers and safety warnings and built and drove it anyway. If you get past all that, you're going to have to prove that the fault was with my design, and not your workmanship, materials, or any mods you made to my design. You may need to prove that you didn't mod my design. The burden of proof is on you, after all. Especially if I've actually build and drive one based on my plan and didn't crash or have the wheels come off.</p><p>Case three: I start a company that builds cars based on my design and get them certified as road-legal in the US and start selling them. After they've been in service for a while, people start crashing because the front wheels are falling off. They sue me. Now I'm in trouble, because I actually built the thing and provide it to people.</p><p>Case four: you start a company that uses my design, and have an experience like the above and get sued. People sue you for selling them a car with wheels that fall off. You decide you want to sue me because I designed it and put the plans on the Internet. Likely a non-starter, for the same reasons as above: I put it out there with all the warnings that it might not even work, hasn't been tested, blahblahblah, and you chooe to design and build a car around it anyway.</p><p>=</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not necessarily .
Let 's say I write a program that lets you modify parameters of your car 's engine computer and go racing and release it as-is and under the GPL .
Or , for even greater " as-as " -ness , give it the sort of disclaimers that would accompany proprietary software sold for the same purpose.So , you use my software to re-tune your engine and because of a bug it causes your mixture to go really lean at high RPMS and you burn your pistons the first time you go racing .
Good luck suing me .
You might try , but it had a big notice that said " WARNING : THIS SOFTWARE MAY DESTROY YOUR ENGINE , BURN YOUR HOUSE , STEAL YOUR CAR , DRINK YOUR LIQUOR FROM YOUR OLD FRUIT JAR , AND EVEN STEP ON YOUR BLUE SUEDE SHOES .
USE AT YOUR OWN RISK .
" We get into court .
At the earliest opportunity , my lawyer says , " So , this software comes with a warning that it may destroy your engine , yet you used it anyway ?
" " Uh , yes .
" Move it to the realm of hardware .
I design a car .
I release the design under the GPL , or a comparable documentation license , with the usual disclaimers as above , that it might not even work , use at your own risk , intended for use only by professional mechanics or automobile designers , if you build this you may crash and be killed or permanently injured , blahblahblah .
You download my design , actually build the car , take it to a test track , and drive it .
On your first lap , the wheels come off , you crash , and are crippled for life .
You decide to sue me .
Problem one is you ignored all disclaimers and safety warnings and built and drove it anyway .
If you get past all that , you 're going to have to prove that the fault was with my design , and not your workmanship , materials , or any mods you made to my design .
You may need to prove that you did n't mod my design .
The burden of proof is on you , after all .
Especially if I 've actually build and drive one based on my plan and did n't crash or have the wheels come off.Case three : I start a company that builds cars based on my design and get them certified as road-legal in the US and start selling them .
After they 've been in service for a while , people start crashing because the front wheels are falling off .
They sue me .
Now I 'm in trouble , because I actually built the thing and provide it to people.Case four : you start a company that uses my design , and have an experience like the above and get sued .
People sue you for selling them a car with wheels that fall off .
You decide you want to sue me because I designed it and put the plans on the Internet .
Likely a non-starter , for the same reasons as above : I put it out there with all the warnings that it might not even work , has n't been tested , blahblahblah , and you chooe to design and build a car around it anyway. =</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not necessarily.
Let's say I write a program that lets you modify parameters of your car's engine computer and go racing and release it as-is and under the GPL.
Or, for even greater "as-as"-ness, give it the sort of disclaimers that would accompany proprietary software sold for the same purpose.So, you use my software to re-tune your engine and because of a bug it causes your mixture to go really lean at high RPMS and you burn your pistons the first time you go racing.
Good luck suing me.
You might try, but it had a big notice that said "WARNING: THIS SOFTWARE MAY DESTROY YOUR ENGINE, BURN YOUR HOUSE, STEAL YOUR CAR, DRINK YOUR LIQUOR FROM YOUR OLD FRUIT JAR, AND EVEN STEP ON YOUR BLUE SUEDE SHOES.
USE AT YOUR OWN RISK.
"We get into court.
At the earliest opportunity, my lawyer says, "So, this software comes with a warning that it may destroy your engine, yet you used it anyway?
"  "Uh, yes.
"Move it to the realm of hardware.
I design a car.
I release the design under the GPL, or a comparable documentation license, with the usual disclaimers as above, that it might not even work, use at your own risk, intended for use only by professional mechanics or automobile designers, if you build this you may crash and be killed or permanently injured, blahblahblah.
You download my design, actually build the car, take it to a test track, and drive it.
On your first lap, the wheels come off, you crash, and are crippled for life.
You decide to sue me.
Problem one is you ignored all disclaimers and safety warnings and built and drove it anyway.
If you get past all that, you're going to have to prove that the fault was with my design, and not your workmanship, materials, or any mods you made to my design.
You may need to prove that you didn't mod my design.
The burden of proof is on you, after all.
Especially if I've actually build and drive one based on my plan and didn't crash or have the wheels come off.Case three: I start a company that builds cars based on my design and get them certified as road-legal in the US and start selling them.
After they've been in service for a while, people start crashing because the front wheels are falling off.
They sue me.
Now I'm in trouble, because I actually built the thing and provide it to people.Case four: you start a company that uses my design, and have an experience like the above and get sued.
People sue you for selling them a car with wheels that fall off.
You decide you want to sue me because I designed it and put the plans on the Internet.
Likely a non-starter, for the same reasons as above: I put it out there with all the warnings that it might not even work, hasn't been tested, blahblahblah, and you chooe to design and build a car around it anyway.=</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30382120</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30382618</id>
	<title>Re:Software liability as well</title>
	<author>sowth</author>
	<datestamp>1259583660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yet, in the dialysis center I go to, they use terminals running MS Windows (XP, I think), and from what I understand, the database server is MS SQL Server. I have heard plenty of conversations between techs and nurses which indicate those terminals (used for entering BP, weight, etc) constantly lose information.

</p><p>Luckily the machines probably run something embedded. Otherwise, I and many other patients would probably be dead if they used any MS software on the actual machines. Crazy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yet , in the dialysis center I go to , they use terminals running MS Windows ( XP , I think ) , and from what I understand , the database server is MS SQL Server .
I have heard plenty of conversations between techs and nurses which indicate those terminals ( used for entering BP , weight , etc ) constantly lose information .
Luckily the machines probably run something embedded .
Otherwise , I and many other patients would probably be dead if they used any MS software on the actual machines .
Crazy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yet, in the dialysis center I go to, they use terminals running MS Windows (XP, I think), and from what I understand, the database server is MS SQL Server.
I have heard plenty of conversations between techs and nurses which indicate those terminals (used for entering BP, weight, etc) constantly lose information.
Luckily the machines probably run something embedded.
Otherwise, I and many other patients would probably be dead if they used any MS software on the actual machines.
Crazy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30381794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30386098</id>
	<title>Re:no, they havent.</title>
	<author>IAR80</author>
	<datestamp>1260441180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A mass spectrometer will give you the exact alloy composition of your car's cylinder or gearbox. If someone does this and makes the information publicly available then you don't even have to do it yourself.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A mass spectrometer will give you the exact alloy composition of your car 's cylinder or gearbox .
If someone does this and makes the information publicly available then you do n't even have to do it yourself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A mass spectrometer will give you the exact alloy composition of your car's cylinder or gearbox.
If someone does this and makes the information publicly available then you don't even have to do it yourself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30382138</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30386530</id>
	<title>at the risk of stating the obvious</title>
	<author>Bastard of Subhumani</author>
	<datestamp>1260447120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>should competing big companies be allowed to use their economies of scale to make and sell cheaper products based on open hardware designs developed by small start-ups without payment?</p></div></blockquote><p>Obviously yes.  If you don't want them to, then don't make it open.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>should competing big companies be allowed to use their economies of scale to make and sell cheaper products based on open hardware designs developed by small start-ups without payment ? Obviously yes .
If you do n't want them to , then do n't make it open .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>should competing big companies be allowed to use their economies of scale to make and sell cheaper products based on open hardware designs developed by small start-ups without payment?Obviously yes.
If you don't want them to, then don't make it open.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30381698</id>
	<title>Open Licensing vs. liability</title>
	<author>ground.zero.612</author>
	<datestamp>1259578980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the case of cars, I fail to see why it would create any more of a liability issue than the DIY kit cars currently available. I suspect if it can pass inspection, it can be insured. For cars at least liability lies with the drivers (barring some catastrophic equipment failure, which obviously the manufacturers would be liable for).</p><p>

So, I would assume that if there exists an appropriate ratings committee, standards, and inspectors to ensure safety (QA), liability would be a non-issue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the case of cars , I fail to see why it would create any more of a liability issue than the DIY kit cars currently available .
I suspect if it can pass inspection , it can be insured .
For cars at least liability lies with the drivers ( barring some catastrophic equipment failure , which obviously the manufacturers would be liable for ) .
So , I would assume that if there exists an appropriate ratings committee , standards , and inspectors to ensure safety ( QA ) , liability would be a non-issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the case of cars, I fail to see why it would create any more of a liability issue than the DIY kit cars currently available.
I suspect if it can pass inspection, it can be insured.
For cars at least liability lies with the drivers (barring some catastrophic equipment failure, which obviously the manufacturers would be liable for).
So, I would assume that if there exists an appropriate ratings committee, standards, and inspectors to ensure safety (QA), liability would be a non-issue.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30381776</id>
	<title>Open cars are hardly problems, much less new ones</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259579340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cars have been "open" by default for the majority of their existence -- they may not hand you schematics, but all the workings of the car were out in the open for any mechanic to see and generally well understood.  Mechanics could replace or rebuild just about any part of the car including replacing the engine with a from-scratch rebuild, and this behavior was not only generally tolerated but often encouraged by the auto makers.  It's only in relatively recent times with the advent of computer control that the ability to hide the workings of the vehicle even became possible, and even more recently that these computers were used to try to create a "proprietary" environment where you couldn't have any random mechanic fix your car (and this attempt has largely failed).</p><p>Safety and liability are no more an issue than it was with hot rods and such back in the day.  It's simple:  Your vehicle, modified or no, has to comply with state and federal laws regarding road worthiness, and pass any inspections your state might have.  If your car fails because of the original manufacturer's design, then it's their fault.  If it fails because of a 3rd party modification, that's their fault.  If it fails because of your tinkering in your garage, that's your fault.  Grey areas are hammered out in the courts, like they always have been.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cars have been " open " by default for the majority of their existence -- they may not hand you schematics , but all the workings of the car were out in the open for any mechanic to see and generally well understood .
Mechanics could replace or rebuild just about any part of the car including replacing the engine with a from-scratch rebuild , and this behavior was not only generally tolerated but often encouraged by the auto makers .
It 's only in relatively recent times with the advent of computer control that the ability to hide the workings of the vehicle even became possible , and even more recently that these computers were used to try to create a " proprietary " environment where you could n't have any random mechanic fix your car ( and this attempt has largely failed ) .Safety and liability are no more an issue than it was with hot rods and such back in the day .
It 's simple : Your vehicle , modified or no , has to comply with state and federal laws regarding road worthiness , and pass any inspections your state might have .
If your car fails because of the original manufacturer 's design , then it 's their fault .
If it fails because of a 3rd party modification , that 's their fault .
If it fails because of your tinkering in your garage , that 's your fault .
Grey areas are hammered out in the courts , like they always have been .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cars have been "open" by default for the majority of their existence -- they may not hand you schematics, but all the workings of the car were out in the open for any mechanic to see and generally well understood.
Mechanics could replace or rebuild just about any part of the car including replacing the engine with a from-scratch rebuild, and this behavior was not only generally tolerated but often encouraged by the auto makers.
It's only in relatively recent times with the advent of computer control that the ability to hide the workings of the vehicle even became possible, and even more recently that these computers were used to try to create a "proprietary" environment where you couldn't have any random mechanic fix your car (and this attempt has largely failed).Safety and liability are no more an issue than it was with hot rods and such back in the day.
It's simple:  Your vehicle, modified or no, has to comply with state and federal laws regarding road worthiness, and pass any inspections your state might have.
If your car fails because of the original manufacturer's design, then it's their fault.
If it fails because of a 3rd party modification, that's their fault.
If it fails because of your tinkering in your garage, that's your fault.
Grey areas are hammered out in the courts, like they always have been.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30381976</id>
	<title>Commercial Free != Open Source?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259580360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have a related question that still boggles my mind: Why does a hardware project from a university garner so much more attention than a completely open commercial solution?<br>For example, Atmel, Microchip, Cypress, and Parallax all have free compilers, cheap programers (sometimes embedded), free schematics and free layout files. However, they are not as popular as the Arduino. Why?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a related question that still boggles my mind : Why does a hardware project from a university garner so much more attention than a completely open commercial solution ? For example , Atmel , Microchip , Cypress , and Parallax all have free compilers , cheap programers ( sometimes embedded ) , free schematics and free layout files .
However , they are not as popular as the Arduino .
Why ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a related question that still boggles my mind: Why does a hardware project from a university garner so much more attention than a completely open commercial solution?For example, Atmel, Microchip, Cypress, and Parallax all have free compilers, cheap programers (sometimes embedded), free schematics and free layout files.
However, they are not as popular as the Arduino.
Why?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30381966</id>
	<title>There is a tech industry in London/UK?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259580360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Who knew?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who knew ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who knew?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30381756</id>
	<title>Licensing</title>
	<author>cheesybagel</author>
	<datestamp>1259579220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
<i> For example, should competing big companies be allowed to use their economies of scale to make and sell cheaper products based on open hardware designs developed by small start-ups without payment?</i>
</p><p>
This is called a non-commercial license. Non-commercial licenses have had a notoriously poor market reception in the past for software (no kidding). Only successful project I remember which uses such a license is MAME. People usually hate it for that, since you cannot easily port work to/from MAME and other open-source projects easily. If you do not allow people to manufacture hardware in a commercial basis, it will be even worse, since most people do not have the resources to manufacture hardware. It is nearly as bad as having a closed design.
</p><p>
'Hacking' for unlawful purposes is a problem with any design.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For example , should competing big companies be allowed to use their economies of scale to make and sell cheaper products based on open hardware designs developed by small start-ups without payment ?
This is called a non-commercial license .
Non-commercial licenses have had a notoriously poor market reception in the past for software ( no kidding ) .
Only successful project I remember which uses such a license is MAME .
People usually hate it for that , since you can not easily port work to/from MAME and other open-source projects easily .
If you do not allow people to manufacture hardware in a commercial basis , it will be even worse , since most people do not have the resources to manufacture hardware .
It is nearly as bad as having a closed design .
'Hacking ' for unlawful purposes is a problem with any design .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
 For example, should competing big companies be allowed to use their economies of scale to make and sell cheaper products based on open hardware designs developed by small start-ups without payment?
This is called a non-commercial license.
Non-commercial licenses have had a notoriously poor market reception in the past for software (no kidding).
Only successful project I remember which uses such a license is MAME.
People usually hate it for that, since you cannot easily port work to/from MAME and other open-source projects easily.
If you do not allow people to manufacture hardware in a commercial basis, it will be even worse, since most people do not have the resources to manufacture hardware.
It is nearly as bad as having a closed design.
'Hacking' for unlawful purposes is a problem with any design.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30385942</id>
	<title>Re:I don't see any difference between software...</title>
	<author>ihavnoid</author>
	<datestamp>1260438960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree that liability isn't a problem (you use it, you are responsible), but cost certainly is a problem.</p><p>The bare minimum to develop open-source hardware (assuming you want something with flashing LEDs, not simulation) is 1) a cheap FPGA board, and 2) a FPGA development tool.  To do anything decent, you need to spend a couple of hundred of dollars for the board, but fortunately the tool comes free ('web edition').  This may be enough for developing something moderately complex - say a digital audio player.</p><p>However, if you want to develop something much larger, say something like a decently-sized microprocessor with some hardware acceleration, that's about 10k for the FPGA board and another 3k for tools.  Add in some more tools, and it goes beyond your average hobby.</p><p>Of course some people can shell 20k for some hobby, but that results in a lack of users, and thus, collaboration (e.g. feedbacks, bug reports, contributions).  If you are going to try some new software, the hardware cost you are going to spend is normally zero.  If it doesn't work for you, you just wasted a day or two.</p><p>If you are going to try some new open-source hardware, that requires 10 grand.  If it doesn't work for you, you wasted a whole month trying to build it, and all you have is an expensive piece of crap.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree that liability is n't a problem ( you use it , you are responsible ) , but cost certainly is a problem.The bare minimum to develop open-source hardware ( assuming you want something with flashing LEDs , not simulation ) is 1 ) a cheap FPGA board , and 2 ) a FPGA development tool .
To do anything decent , you need to spend a couple of hundred of dollars for the board , but fortunately the tool comes free ( 'web edition ' ) .
This may be enough for developing something moderately complex - say a digital audio player.However , if you want to develop something much larger , say something like a decently-sized microprocessor with some hardware acceleration , that 's about 10k for the FPGA board and another 3k for tools .
Add in some more tools , and it goes beyond your average hobby.Of course some people can shell 20k for some hobby , but that results in a lack of users , and thus , collaboration ( e.g .
feedbacks , bug reports , contributions ) .
If you are going to try some new software , the hardware cost you are going to spend is normally zero .
If it does n't work for you , you just wasted a day or two.If you are going to try some new open-source hardware , that requires 10 grand .
If it does n't work for you , you wasted a whole month trying to build it , and all you have is an expensive piece of crap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree that liability isn't a problem (you use it, you are responsible), but cost certainly is a problem.The bare minimum to develop open-source hardware (assuming you want something with flashing LEDs, not simulation) is 1) a cheap FPGA board, and 2) a FPGA development tool.
To do anything decent, you need to spend a couple of hundred of dollars for the board, but fortunately the tool comes free ('web edition').
This may be enough for developing something moderately complex - say a digital audio player.However, if you want to develop something much larger, say something like a decently-sized microprocessor with some hardware acceleration, that's about 10k for the FPGA board and another 3k for tools.
Add in some more tools, and it goes beyond your average hobby.Of course some people can shell 20k for some hobby, but that results in a lack of users, and thus, collaboration (e.g.
feedbacks, bug reports, contributions).
If you are going to try some new software, the hardware cost you are going to spend is normally zero.
If it doesn't work for you, you just wasted a day or two.If you are going to try some new open-source hardware, that requires 10 grand.
If it doesn't work for you, you wasted a whole month trying to build it, and all you have is an expensive piece of crap.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30381818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30381794</id>
	<title>Software liability as well</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259579400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's a reason they don't use homebrew Linux* <b>with the cool-patch-of-the-day</b> in medical and other high-risk-if-something-goes-wrong devices:  liability.</p><p>*Nothing wrong with Linux or any other open OS in medical devices, as long as the entire system has gone through all the regulatory and industry-standard quality checks first.  Notice how the Microsoft Windows license says "don't use this in your nuclear reactor, if you do don't sue us if it melts down" or words to that effect.  At least with Linux you could in principle tweak it until it was robust enough to run your nuclear plant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a reason they do n't use homebrew Linux * with the cool-patch-of-the-day in medical and other high-risk-if-something-goes-wrong devices : liability .
* Nothing wrong with Linux or any other open OS in medical devices , as long as the entire system has gone through all the regulatory and industry-standard quality checks first .
Notice how the Microsoft Windows license says " do n't use this in your nuclear reactor , if you do do n't sue us if it melts down " or words to that effect .
At least with Linux you could in principle tweak it until it was robust enough to run your nuclear plant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a reason they don't use homebrew Linux* with the cool-patch-of-the-day in medical and other high-risk-if-something-goes-wrong devices:  liability.
*Nothing wrong with Linux or any other open OS in medical devices, as long as the entire system has gone through all the regulatory and industry-standard quality checks first.
Notice how the Microsoft Windows license says "don't use this in your nuclear reactor, if you do don't sue us if it melts down" or words to that effect.
At least with Linux you could in principle tweak it until it was robust enough to run your nuclear plant.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30381818</id>
	<title>I don't see any difference between software...</title>
	<author>w4rl5ck</author>
	<datestamp>1259579580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... and hardware, here.</p><p>1. liability - so, you say, software does not lead to "liability"? No coder is liable for the code he writes? I don't think so. Just have a look at all those "no liability" clauses. And: yes, software - even OSS - can kill people. I'm pretty sure a lot of OSS software is responsibly for deaths in many wars taking place right now. So there really is no difference between an open licensed car and some OSS software  - maybe operating IN that car.</p><p>2. cost - so, just because it's hardware, it is assumed that developing the hardware - with a big company "prospering" on it afterwords - is somehow different from software. I don't get why that is. It was never meant as "free as in beer" - there seems to be some misconception in this, yes.</p><p>Just because you can't touch the software, the implications for the programmer writing and open-licensing an OSS program are absolutely the same for a hardware developer.</p><p>Of course, building/prototyping hardware CAN be more expensive, but thinking of software development as "cheap" just because you can get a PC for ~$200 - yeah, well, no... not really.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... and hardware , here.1 .
liability - so , you say , software does not lead to " liability " ?
No coder is liable for the code he writes ?
I do n't think so .
Just have a look at all those " no liability " clauses .
And : yes , software - even OSS - can kill people .
I 'm pretty sure a lot of OSS software is responsibly for deaths in many wars taking place right now .
So there really is no difference between an open licensed car and some OSS software - maybe operating IN that car.2 .
cost - so , just because it 's hardware , it is assumed that developing the hardware - with a big company " prospering " on it afterwords - is somehow different from software .
I do n't get why that is .
It was never meant as " free as in beer " - there seems to be some misconception in this , yes.Just because you ca n't touch the software , the implications for the programmer writing and open-licensing an OSS program are absolutely the same for a hardware developer.Of course , building/prototyping hardware CAN be more expensive , but thinking of software development as " cheap " just because you can get a PC for ~ $ 200 - yeah , well , no... not really .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... and hardware, here.1.
liability - so, you say, software does not lead to "liability"?
No coder is liable for the code he writes?
I don't think so.
Just have a look at all those "no liability" clauses.
And: yes, software - even OSS - can kill people.
I'm pretty sure a lot of OSS software is responsibly for deaths in many wars taking place right now.
So there really is no difference between an open licensed car and some OSS software  - maybe operating IN that car.2.
cost - so, just because it's hardware, it is assumed that developing the hardware - with a big company "prospering" on it afterwords - is somehow different from software.
I don't get why that is.
It was never meant as "free as in beer" - there seems to be some misconception in this, yes.Just because you can't touch the software, the implications for the programmer writing and open-licensing an OSS program are absolutely the same for a hardware developer.Of course, building/prototyping hardware CAN be more expensive, but thinking of software development as "cheap" just because you can get a PC for ~$200 - yeah, well, no... not really.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30381998</id>
	<title>Re:Security implications?</title>
	<author>Anonymous McCartneyf</author>
	<datestamp>1259580480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The designs don't have to be lousy to have faults visible only in the design.  The truly lousy designs have flaws visible whenever you try to use the things.<br>
That said, there are two ways security could be affected by open design:<br>
First, they said <em>open</em> design, not copylefted design.  Someone could take an open design, change it just a little, and not list their changes.  It could then be really tricky to determine whether the demonstrated flaw is in the open design or the hidden changes.<br>
Second, many of the people who are most vocal about security believe (for good or ill) in "security by obscurity."  You can't get that from an open design unless you secretly change it, which loops back into point one.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The designs do n't have to be lousy to have faults visible only in the design .
The truly lousy designs have flaws visible whenever you try to use the things .
That said , there are two ways security could be affected by open design : First , they said open design , not copylefted design .
Someone could take an open design , change it just a little , and not list their changes .
It could then be really tricky to determine whether the demonstrated flaw is in the open design or the hidden changes .
Second , many of the people who are most vocal about security believe ( for good or ill ) in " security by obscurity .
" You ca n't get that from an open design unless you secretly change it , which loops back into point one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The designs don't have to be lousy to have faults visible only in the design.
The truly lousy designs have flaws visible whenever you try to use the things.
That said, there are two ways security could be affected by open design:
First, they said open design, not copylefted design.
Someone could take an open design, change it just a little, and not list their changes.
It could then be really tricky to determine whether the demonstrated flaw is in the open design or the hidden changes.
Second, many of the people who are most vocal about security believe (for good or ill) in "security by obscurity.
"  You can't get that from an open design unless you secretly change it, which loops back into point one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30381564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30382160</id>
	<title>The solution is easy enough.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259581260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The first "open source" hardware designs must be for the technology required to remove the necessity for money from our economy. Automated farming equipment &amp; food processing equipment, automated machine maintenance systems, automated construction devices &amp; construction supply manufacture, or, simply enough, replicator technology. Without concerns over the monetary aspects, licensing becomes irrelevant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The first " open source " hardware designs must be for the technology required to remove the necessity for money from our economy .
Automated farming equipment &amp; food processing equipment , automated machine maintenance systems , automated construction devices &amp; construction supply manufacture , or , simply enough , replicator technology .
Without concerns over the monetary aspects , licensing becomes irrelevant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The first "open source" hardware designs must be for the technology required to remove the necessity for money from our economy.
Automated farming equipment &amp; food processing equipment, automated machine maintenance systems, automated construction devices &amp; construction supply manufacture, or, simply enough, replicator technology.
Without concerns over the monetary aspects, licensing becomes irrelevant.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30382138</id>
	<title>no, they havent.</title>
	<author>nimbius</author>
	<datestamp>1259581140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>So i want to replace the cylinders in my honda accord, what is the exact nickel content in each cylinder?  what are the heat treat specifications for that cylinder? this is important, and this is proprietary knowledge given only to safety organizations like the DOT.<br> <br>
another example:  my M5PVL drive gear, a component of my Acura transmission, has a certain chemical makeup.  I know the makeup of the M5PVL for my honda pilot, but my Acura has turbochargers (its an RDX.)  if you dont have the chemical makeup of the steel, you end up with a gear that explodes under stress. <br> <br>
Lastly, id like to exploit the extra space in my TL drivetrain to add motors and make a hybrid, but im worried the recall information on the cold weather start and idle fluid transfer system for the transmission is insufficient.  I know the fluid doesnt transfer properly and i need to return the transmission for a different one, but I need more information about the failures so i can determine how best to plan my motor layout...this information is proprietary.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So i want to replace the cylinders in my honda accord , what is the exact nickel content in each cylinder ?
what are the heat treat specifications for that cylinder ?
this is important , and this is proprietary knowledge given only to safety organizations like the DOT .
another example : my M5PVL drive gear , a component of my Acura transmission , has a certain chemical makeup .
I know the makeup of the M5PVL for my honda pilot , but my Acura has turbochargers ( its an RDX .
) if you dont have the chemical makeup of the steel , you end up with a gear that explodes under stress .
Lastly , id like to exploit the extra space in my TL drivetrain to add motors and make a hybrid , but im worried the recall information on the cold weather start and idle fluid transfer system for the transmission is insufficient .
I know the fluid doesnt transfer properly and i need to return the transmission for a different one , but I need more information about the failures so i can determine how best to plan my motor layout...this information is proprietary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So i want to replace the cylinders in my honda accord, what is the exact nickel content in each cylinder?
what are the heat treat specifications for that cylinder?
this is important, and this is proprietary knowledge given only to safety organizations like the DOT.
another example:  my M5PVL drive gear, a component of my Acura transmission, has a certain chemical makeup.
I know the makeup of the M5PVL for my honda pilot, but my Acura has turbochargers (its an RDX.
)  if you dont have the chemical makeup of the steel, you end up with a gear that explodes under stress.
Lastly, id like to exploit the extra space in my TL drivetrain to add motors and make a hybrid, but im worried the recall information on the cold weather start and idle fluid transfer system for the transmission is insufficient.
I know the fluid doesnt transfer properly and i need to return the transmission for a different one, but I need more information about the failures so i can determine how best to plan my motor layout...this information is proprietary.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30381776</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30382100</id>
	<title>Re:open design</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1259581020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Doesn't work as well with hardware.</p><p>You make a widget, and it costs you 20 bucks in material. GE likes it and it costs them 1 dollar in material.<br>You wouldn't really make any money, and if it's so good people need a reference product, GE will get in house poeople to develop it.</p><p>On the plus side, another large corporation could come along and make it to compete with GE; which drives the consumer cost down. Now it's even harder for you to compete.</p><p>You are correct, that it's open and therefor it should be open to all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does n't work as well with hardware.You make a widget , and it costs you 20 bucks in material .
GE likes it and it costs them 1 dollar in material.You would n't really make any money , and if it 's so good people need a reference product , GE will get in house poeople to develop it.On the plus side , another large corporation could come along and make it to compete with GE ; which drives the consumer cost down .
Now it 's even harder for you to compete.You are correct , that it 's open and therefor it should be open to all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doesn't work as well with hardware.You make a widget, and it costs you 20 bucks in material.
GE likes it and it costs them 1 dollar in material.You wouldn't really make any money, and if it's so good people need a reference product, GE will get in house poeople to develop it.On the plus side, another large corporation could come along and make it to compete with GE; which drives the consumer cost down.
Now it's even harder for you to compete.You are correct, that it's open and therefor it should be open to all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30381624</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30382174</id>
	<title>Re:Uh... yah?</title>
	<author>Sponge Bath</author>
	<datestamp>1259581320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly. If your start-up's only advantage is in the IP, don't open it up. If you open it up to help create an ecosystem for your product, then a large company getting involved should help.</p><p>A company using open hardware or software needs to do some sort of review of the IP anyways, since they are ultimately responsible to their end customers. For open software you can fudge this a bit and fix it up later if you miss something. If a large hardware company builds millions of something blindly based on open IP and it is flawed, then they are screwed. So even with open hardware IP, every company has to invest some engineering time to use it and the originator should have a head start.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
If your start-up 's only advantage is in the IP , do n't open it up .
If you open it up to help create an ecosystem for your product , then a large company getting involved should help.A company using open hardware or software needs to do some sort of review of the IP anyways , since they are ultimately responsible to their end customers .
For open software you can fudge this a bit and fix it up later if you miss something .
If a large hardware company builds millions of something blindly based on open IP and it is flawed , then they are screwed .
So even with open hardware IP , every company has to invest some engineering time to use it and the originator should have a head start .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
If your start-up's only advantage is in the IP, don't open it up.
If you open it up to help create an ecosystem for your product, then a large company getting involved should help.A company using open hardware or software needs to do some sort of review of the IP anyways, since they are ultimately responsible to their end customers.
For open software you can fudge this a bit and fix it up later if you miss something.
If a large hardware company builds millions of something blindly based on open IP and it is flawed, then they are screwed.
So even with open hardware IP, every company has to invest some engineering time to use it and the originator should have a head start.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30381934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30381942</id>
	<title>Liability?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259580180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, sure, as if, for instance, Ralph Nader had no trouble at all making Chevrolet admit that the Corvair was a real coffin on wheels... Wanna bet an open-source Corvair would have been better?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , sure , as if , for instance , Ralph Nader had no trouble at all making Chevrolet admit that the Corvair was a real coffin on wheels... Wan na bet an open-source Corvair would have been better ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, sure, as if, for instance, Ralph Nader had no trouble at all making Chevrolet admit that the Corvair was a real coffin on wheels... Wanna bet an open-source Corvair would have been better?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30381564</id>
	<title>Security implications?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259578380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't understand why there would be security implications in having open designs for physical objects, unless those designs are pretty lousy and have faults that are only visible with the design.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't understand why there would be security implications in having open designs for physical objects , unless those designs are pretty lousy and have faults that are only visible with the design .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't understand why there would be security implications in having open designs for physical objects, unless those designs are pretty lousy and have faults that are only visible with the design.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30381754</id>
	<title>Re:open design</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259579220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oooh yeah. I'm ready to spend several thousand dollars extra for a "reference platform." Sure. Please go right on believing it. And would you be so good to do some of the work on my next project and release it under some open source license so I can just use it? Please?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oooh yeah .
I 'm ready to spend several thousand dollars extra for a " reference platform .
" Sure .
Please go right on believing it .
And would you be so good to do some of the work on my next project and release it under some open source license so I can just use it ?
Please ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oooh yeah.
I'm ready to spend several thousand dollars extra for a "reference platform.
" Sure.
Please go right on believing it.
And would you be so good to do some of the work on my next project and release it under some open source license so I can just use it?
Please?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30381624</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30384300</id>
	<title>Companies should just open source old technology</title>
	<author>Orion Blastar</author>
	<datestamp>1259595300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>to let the small start ups and big companies use the old technology and see who can make a better system with it.</p><p>The old MOS 6502 and 65816 series CPUs should be open sourced hardware so that companies can make cheap 8 bit computers based on them, or even design new computers using them in a creative way. Commodore should open source the VIC-20, Commodore 64/128, Commodore 16/Plus4. Atari should open source the 400/800/800XL.1200XL, Apple should open source the Apple<nobr> <wbr></nobr>// and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>//gs line of computers.</p><p>The old Motorola 6800/6809 and 68K series should be open sourced so we can have old Motorola based systems recreated for a low cost. Apple should open source the 68K Macs, Atari open source the Atari ST, Radio Shack open source the COCO (Color Computer) line, Amiga open source the 68K Amiga line and let the best company reproduce the old systems.</p><p>Intel should open source the 8088/8086, 80286, 80386, 80486, and Pentium chips and IBM and Compaq open source their old systems that used the 486 and under processors. Then we can use MS-DOS on them or FreeDOS and see who can build the better DOS based computer. OpenGEM is already open sourced DRI GEM, and I'd like to see 386MOS, Taskview, Desqview, IBM PC-DOS, DR-DOS, etc open sourced as well. I know OS/2 cannot be open sourced due to 300+ third party code IP, but OSFree is an open source project to create an open source alternative to OS/2 and IBM needs to contribute to it to develop it further.</p><p>The AM/FM Cassette players, 8 Track Tape players, VHS Video Recorders, etc should be open sourced so that cheaper versions can be made. I know it is old tech but media for them still exists and people have a need to play and listen to their old media.</p><p>The old cars that aren't made anymore need to be open sourced as well. The 1890 to 1950's cars should be released to open source so that people can put modern engines in them and make parts to replace those on existing cars that need repairs and upgrades. The auto companies cannot afford to upgrade them and replace parts for them anymore, so let the others deal with it.</p><p>Someone needs to create an open source hardware plugin hybrid engine for cars, and then adapt them to any vehicle to swap out the gas powered engine for the plugin hybrid one. We need this to convert old gas guzzler cars to hybrids as cheaply as possible. If not most people won't be able to afford new Hybrids. We need to be able to take the $500 car that gets 10 MPG and convert it for under $500 to a Hybrid engine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>to let the small start ups and big companies use the old technology and see who can make a better system with it.The old MOS 6502 and 65816 series CPUs should be open sourced hardware so that companies can make cheap 8 bit computers based on them , or even design new computers using them in a creative way .
Commodore should open source the VIC-20 , Commodore 64/128 , Commodore 16/Plus4 .
Atari should open source the 400/800/800XL.1200XL , Apple should open source the Apple // and //gs line of computers.The old Motorola 6800/6809 and 68K series should be open sourced so we can have old Motorola based systems recreated for a low cost .
Apple should open source the 68K Macs , Atari open source the Atari ST , Radio Shack open source the COCO ( Color Computer ) line , Amiga open source the 68K Amiga line and let the best company reproduce the old systems.Intel should open source the 8088/8086 , 80286 , 80386 , 80486 , and Pentium chips and IBM and Compaq open source their old systems that used the 486 and under processors .
Then we can use MS-DOS on them or FreeDOS and see who can build the better DOS based computer .
OpenGEM is already open sourced DRI GEM , and I 'd like to see 386MOS , Taskview , Desqview , IBM PC-DOS , DR-DOS , etc open sourced as well .
I know OS/2 can not be open sourced due to 300 + third party code IP , but OSFree is an open source project to create an open source alternative to OS/2 and IBM needs to contribute to it to develop it further.The AM/FM Cassette players , 8 Track Tape players , VHS Video Recorders , etc should be open sourced so that cheaper versions can be made .
I know it is old tech but media for them still exists and people have a need to play and listen to their old media.The old cars that are n't made anymore need to be open sourced as well .
The 1890 to 1950 's cars should be released to open source so that people can put modern engines in them and make parts to replace those on existing cars that need repairs and upgrades .
The auto companies can not afford to upgrade them and replace parts for them anymore , so let the others deal with it.Someone needs to create an open source hardware plugin hybrid engine for cars , and then adapt them to any vehicle to swap out the gas powered engine for the plugin hybrid one .
We need this to convert old gas guzzler cars to hybrids as cheaply as possible .
If not most people wo n't be able to afford new Hybrids .
We need to be able to take the $ 500 car that gets 10 MPG and convert it for under $ 500 to a Hybrid engine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>to let the small start ups and big companies use the old technology and see who can make a better system with it.The old MOS 6502 and 65816 series CPUs should be open sourced hardware so that companies can make cheap 8 bit computers based on them, or even design new computers using them in a creative way.
Commodore should open source the VIC-20, Commodore 64/128, Commodore 16/Plus4.
Atari should open source the 400/800/800XL.1200XL, Apple should open source the Apple // and //gs line of computers.The old Motorola 6800/6809 and 68K series should be open sourced so we can have old Motorola based systems recreated for a low cost.
Apple should open source the 68K Macs, Atari open source the Atari ST, Radio Shack open source the COCO (Color Computer) line, Amiga open source the 68K Amiga line and let the best company reproduce the old systems.Intel should open source the 8088/8086, 80286, 80386, 80486, and Pentium chips and IBM and Compaq open source their old systems that used the 486 and under processors.
Then we can use MS-DOS on them or FreeDOS and see who can build the better DOS based computer.
OpenGEM is already open sourced DRI GEM, and I'd like to see 386MOS, Taskview, Desqview, IBM PC-DOS, DR-DOS, etc open sourced as well.
I know OS/2 cannot be open sourced due to 300+ third party code IP, but OSFree is an open source project to create an open source alternative to OS/2 and IBM needs to contribute to it to develop it further.The AM/FM Cassette players, 8 Track Tape players, VHS Video Recorders, etc should be open sourced so that cheaper versions can be made.
I know it is old tech but media for them still exists and people have a need to play and listen to their old media.The old cars that aren't made anymore need to be open sourced as well.
The 1890 to 1950's cars should be released to open source so that people can put modern engines in them and make parts to replace those on existing cars that need repairs and upgrades.
The auto companies cannot afford to upgrade them and replace parts for them anymore, so let the others deal with it.Someone needs to create an open source hardware plugin hybrid engine for cars, and then adapt them to any vehicle to swap out the gas powered engine for the plugin hybrid one.
We need this to convert old gas guzzler cars to hybrids as cheaply as possible.
If not most people won't be able to afford new Hybrids.
We need to be able to take the $500 car that gets 10 MPG and convert it for under $500 to a Hybrid engine.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30383052</id>
	<title>Re:no, they havent.</title>
	<author>QuasiEvil</author>
	<datestamp>1259586180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The thing is, you don't need the specifications on what Honda did.  You need to calculate the limits at which the part needs to perform plus safety margin and work from there.  Honda engineers obviously have the advantage of exact numbers and thousands of man-years of research and testing on their specific platform, and thus can get away with a much lower safety margin (because they know *exactly* what it must do), but that doesn't stop your a decent ME from figuring out roughly the same thing.</p><p>Car modifications over the years have traditionally been done by backyard mechnics with no ME degree.  It can be done.  It just can't be done with such a high degree of certainty as would be required for any engineered solution.  Being able to construct something that works vs. something that's compact, inexpensive to manufacture, and reliable over the long term is the difference many times between amateurs and professionals.  Often times rather than working through the calculations, it's much easier for the amateur to just way overbuild something and learn through trial and error.</p><p>Typically my rule when re-engineering car bits is to figure out the worst case and add a large margin if the part is subject to significant stresses.  Then again I'm primarily working in the electrical side of things, as I'm an EE and my ME friends have made me swear off ever touching mechnical bits.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The thing is , you do n't need the specifications on what Honda did .
You need to calculate the limits at which the part needs to perform plus safety margin and work from there .
Honda engineers obviously have the advantage of exact numbers and thousands of man-years of research and testing on their specific platform , and thus can get away with a much lower safety margin ( because they know * exactly * what it must do ) , but that does n't stop your a decent ME from figuring out roughly the same thing.Car modifications over the years have traditionally been done by backyard mechnics with no ME degree .
It can be done .
It just ca n't be done with such a high degree of certainty as would be required for any engineered solution .
Being able to construct something that works vs. something that 's compact , inexpensive to manufacture , and reliable over the long term is the difference many times between amateurs and professionals .
Often times rather than working through the calculations , it 's much easier for the amateur to just way overbuild something and learn through trial and error.Typically my rule when re-engineering car bits is to figure out the worst case and add a large margin if the part is subject to significant stresses .
Then again I 'm primarily working in the electrical side of things , as I 'm an EE and my ME friends have made me swear off ever touching mechnical bits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The thing is, you don't need the specifications on what Honda did.
You need to calculate the limits at which the part needs to perform plus safety margin and work from there.
Honda engineers obviously have the advantage of exact numbers and thousands of man-years of research and testing on their specific platform, and thus can get away with a much lower safety margin (because they know *exactly* what it must do), but that doesn't stop your a decent ME from figuring out roughly the same thing.Car modifications over the years have traditionally been done by backyard mechnics with no ME degree.
It can be done.
It just can't be done with such a high degree of certainty as would be required for any engineered solution.
Being able to construct something that works vs. something that's compact, inexpensive to manufacture, and reliable over the long term is the difference many times between amateurs and professionals.
Often times rather than working through the calculations, it's much easier for the amateur to just way overbuild something and learn through trial and error.Typically my rule when re-engineering car bits is to figure out the worst case and add a large margin if the part is subject to significant stresses.
Then again I'm primarily working in the electrical side of things, as I'm an EE and my ME friends have made me swear off ever touching mechnical bits.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30382138</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30381772</id>
	<title>Then NO Open Design</title>
	<author>SirAstral</author>
	<datestamp>1259579340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You just need to offer a free license instead.  This will allow you to keep rights and to control how it is freely distributed.  Only problem... don't expect people to trust the dictator.  Otherwise the question is counter to open design to begin with.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You just need to offer a free license instead .
This will allow you to keep rights and to control how it is freely distributed .
Only problem... do n't expect people to trust the dictator .
Otherwise the question is counter to open design to begin with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You just need to offer a free license instead.
This will allow you to keep rights and to control how it is freely distributed.
Only problem... don't expect people to trust the dictator.
Otherwise the question is counter to open design to begin with.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30399204</id>
	<title>Re:wrong question</title>
	<author>petermgreen</author>
	<datestamp>1260522960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i> Hardware isn't special in requiring money/time to develop so why is it that this question only really gets asked when an open philosophy is applied to physical objects?</i><br>The difference is in the barrier to entry.</p><p>I can download a linux distribution which is an OS easilly comparable and some would say better than it's closed source competition. Using nothing other than my standard desktop PC and my time I can fix things that piss me off and submit patches for those to the upstream projects. Even if I don't submit the fixes upstream I can deploy the fixed version of the software to as many machines as I want for no more cost other than my time and the time cost will be comparable to deploying the unmodified version.</p><p>Now suppose I could download the hardware design for a competitive motherboard or the verilog code for a competitive processor. What exactly could I do with it? In the former case nothing without spending huge sums of money! In the latter case maybe I could run it on a huge FPGA but that would be neither cheap nor fast.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hardware is n't special in requiring money/time to develop so why is it that this question only really gets asked when an open philosophy is applied to physical objects ? The difference is in the barrier to entry.I can download a linux distribution which is an OS easilly comparable and some would say better than it 's closed source competition .
Using nothing other than my standard desktop PC and my time I can fix things that piss me off and submit patches for those to the upstream projects .
Even if I do n't submit the fixes upstream I can deploy the fixed version of the software to as many machines as I want for no more cost other than my time and the time cost will be comparable to deploying the unmodified version.Now suppose I could download the hardware design for a competitive motherboard or the verilog code for a competitive processor .
What exactly could I do with it ?
In the former case nothing without spending huge sums of money !
In the latter case maybe I could run it on a huge FPGA but that would be neither cheap nor fast .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Hardware isn't special in requiring money/time to develop so why is it that this question only really gets asked when an open philosophy is applied to physical objects?The difference is in the barrier to entry.I can download a linux distribution which is an OS easilly comparable and some would say better than it's closed source competition.
Using nothing other than my standard desktop PC and my time I can fix things that piss me off and submit patches for those to the upstream projects.
Even if I don't submit the fixes upstream I can deploy the fixed version of the software to as many machines as I want for no more cost other than my time and the time cost will be comparable to deploying the unmodified version.Now suppose I could download the hardware design for a competitive motherboard or the verilog code for a competitive processor.
What exactly could I do with it?
In the former case nothing without spending huge sums of money!
In the latter case maybe I could run it on a huge FPGA but that would be neither cheap nor fast.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30381790</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30381562</id>
	<title>Linux howto</title>
	<author>Aan Cocks</author>
	<datestamp>1259578380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Introduction</p><p>This HOW-TO explains how to perform Buttsex in the Linux Operating System w/Enterprise Resources (LOSER). This HOW-TO assumes basic knowledge of general Linux operation.<br>Preparation</p><p>Most basically, all Linux Buttsex requires is a machine running the Linux Operating System, a penis (also referred to as a "cock" or "dick"), and a willing friend. However, you benefit greatly, especially when starting out, if you posess standard Buttsex tools.<br>Standard Buttsex Tools</p><p>Lubricant - Slippery stuff you smear on your johnson and your friend's manpussy, to ease the transition into Buttsex mode. Vaseline will do in a pinch, but water-based lubricants such as KY Jelly and Astroglide are preferable.</p><p>Contraception - Protective barrier between your schlong and the inside of your friend's love canal. Breeders use them to prevent pregnancy, but we queer nancies usually use them to protect ourselves from the deadly AIDS virus. While some enterprising faggots have made do with plastic wrap or masking tape, there is no substitute for a latex condom. Most all condoms will do, as long as they aren't the "extra-thin" type. Some condoms are labelled as beiong superior for Buttsex, but are not necessary.<br>Step One -- Prepare the Anus</p><p>This step is especially important if your friend has never taken a willie in the ass before. Prepare his anus for the width and girth of your manhood with the "finger" command. It is used like so:</p><p>\% finger [insert your friend's name here]</p><p>Begin with your index or middle finger, and then both middle AND index fingers, at the same time. Ten to fifteen minutes should do. If you wish, you may felate him or suck his balls, while you're fingering him.<br>Step Two -- Entry</p><p>Here the fun starts. Have your friend lay prone on the bed, or even better, get down "on all fours". Optionally, place a couple pillows beneath him to make him more comfortable. Now position yourself behind him, and spread his asscheeks. Apply lubricant, generously, to both your sexrod, and his pit of pleasure. It is advisable to stick your fingers partially inside in his anus, to make sure that the entire edge of the entry is covered.</p><p>Your penis must be fully erect in order to make a sucessful entry. If you are not already "hard as a rock", you may rub your penis in his asscrack, while tweaking his nipples (or stroking his cock), and saying intimidating things, such as "I am going to make you squeal like a pig, boy. Squeal, like a pig!"</p><p>When your sexstick is sufficiently engorged with blood, it is time to being entry. Place the head of your cock firmly against his brown anal starfish. Begin applying firm pressure forwards, optionally using your hand to guide your dick on a true course into sodomy. Your friend is most likely moaning in agony or yelping, and you may either ignore this, or in a snide tone, say "You like that, bitch?"</p><p>When your penis is in, move on to the next step.<br>Step Three -- Hardcore Assramming</p><p>This is fairly simple. Move your dick around in his ass, towards and then back, at varying speeds. If for some reason your dick pops out, put in back in, undaunted. Continue pumping and thrusting until you feel you are ready to move on to Step Four.<br>Step Four -- Orgasm</p><p>When ready to blow your load, use this command:</p><p>\% stdout &gt; ass</p><p>This redirects your standard output stream into your friend's pink tunnel of XXXX. Enter the command, then with one final thrust, placing the entire length of your cock inside his body. Your penis will then eject about a quart of sticky white semen, accompanied by tremendous pleasure.<br>Step Five -- Cleanup</p><p>If you wore a condom, cleanup is simple. Remove the condom and toss it out your window. Then sop up any other jizz, anal juice, XXXX, or lubricant with Brawny(R) brand paper towels.</p><p>If you did not wear a condom, your friend will have a steady drip of cum out of his ass for the next few hours. Tell him to "buck up" and stuff some toilet paper in his underwear.<br>Afterward</p><p>Congra</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IntroductionThis HOW-TO explains how to perform Buttsex in the Linux Operating System w/Enterprise Resources ( LOSER ) .
This HOW-TO assumes basic knowledge of general Linux operation.PreparationMost basically , all Linux Buttsex requires is a machine running the Linux Operating System , a penis ( also referred to as a " cock " or " dick " ) , and a willing friend .
However , you benefit greatly , especially when starting out , if you posess standard Buttsex tools.Standard Buttsex ToolsLubricant - Slippery stuff you smear on your johnson and your friend 's manpussy , to ease the transition into Buttsex mode .
Vaseline will do in a pinch , but water-based lubricants such as KY Jelly and Astroglide are preferable.Contraception - Protective barrier between your schlong and the inside of your friend 's love canal .
Breeders use them to prevent pregnancy , but we queer nancies usually use them to protect ourselves from the deadly AIDS virus .
While some enterprising faggots have made do with plastic wrap or masking tape , there is no substitute for a latex condom .
Most all condoms will do , as long as they are n't the " extra-thin " type .
Some condoms are labelled as beiong superior for Buttsex , but are not necessary.Step One -- Prepare the AnusThis step is especially important if your friend has never taken a willie in the ass before .
Prepare his anus for the width and girth of your manhood with the " finger " command .
It is used like so : \ % finger [ insert your friend 's name here ] Begin with your index or middle finger , and then both middle AND index fingers , at the same time .
Ten to fifteen minutes should do .
If you wish , you may felate him or suck his balls , while you 're fingering him.Step Two -- EntryHere the fun starts .
Have your friend lay prone on the bed , or even better , get down " on all fours " .
Optionally , place a couple pillows beneath him to make him more comfortable .
Now position yourself behind him , and spread his asscheeks .
Apply lubricant , generously , to both your sexrod , and his pit of pleasure .
It is advisable to stick your fingers partially inside in his anus , to make sure that the entire edge of the entry is covered.Your penis must be fully erect in order to make a sucessful entry .
If you are not already " hard as a rock " , you may rub your penis in his asscrack , while tweaking his nipples ( or stroking his cock ) , and saying intimidating things , such as " I am going to make you squeal like a pig , boy .
Squeal , like a pig !
" When your sexstick is sufficiently engorged with blood , it is time to being entry .
Place the head of your cock firmly against his brown anal starfish .
Begin applying firm pressure forwards , optionally using your hand to guide your dick on a true course into sodomy .
Your friend is most likely moaning in agony or yelping , and you may either ignore this , or in a snide tone , say " You like that , bitch ?
" When your penis is in , move on to the next step.Step Three -- Hardcore AssrammingThis is fairly simple .
Move your dick around in his ass , towards and then back , at varying speeds .
If for some reason your dick pops out , put in back in , undaunted .
Continue pumping and thrusting until you feel you are ready to move on to Step Four.Step Four -- OrgasmWhen ready to blow your load , use this command : \ % stdout &gt; assThis redirects your standard output stream into your friend 's pink tunnel of XXXX .
Enter the command , then with one final thrust , placing the entire length of your cock inside his body .
Your penis will then eject about a quart of sticky white semen , accompanied by tremendous pleasure.Step Five -- CleanupIf you wore a condom , cleanup is simple .
Remove the condom and toss it out your window .
Then sop up any other jizz , anal juice , XXXX , or lubricant with Brawny ( R ) brand paper towels.If you did not wear a condom , your friend will have a steady drip of cum out of his ass for the next few hours .
Tell him to " buck up " and stuff some toilet paper in his underwear.AfterwardCongra</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IntroductionThis HOW-TO explains how to perform Buttsex in the Linux Operating System w/Enterprise Resources (LOSER).
This HOW-TO assumes basic knowledge of general Linux operation.PreparationMost basically, all Linux Buttsex requires is a machine running the Linux Operating System, a penis (also referred to as a "cock" or "dick"), and a willing friend.
However, you benefit greatly, especially when starting out, if you posess standard Buttsex tools.Standard Buttsex ToolsLubricant - Slippery stuff you smear on your johnson and your friend's manpussy, to ease the transition into Buttsex mode.
Vaseline will do in a pinch, but water-based lubricants such as KY Jelly and Astroglide are preferable.Contraception - Protective barrier between your schlong and the inside of your friend's love canal.
Breeders use them to prevent pregnancy, but we queer nancies usually use them to protect ourselves from the deadly AIDS virus.
While some enterprising faggots have made do with plastic wrap or masking tape, there is no substitute for a latex condom.
Most all condoms will do, as long as they aren't the "extra-thin" type.
Some condoms are labelled as beiong superior for Buttsex, but are not necessary.Step One -- Prepare the AnusThis step is especially important if your friend has never taken a willie in the ass before.
Prepare his anus for the width and girth of your manhood with the "finger" command.
It is used like so:\% finger [insert your friend's name here]Begin with your index or middle finger, and then both middle AND index fingers, at the same time.
Ten to fifteen minutes should do.
If you wish, you may felate him or suck his balls, while you're fingering him.Step Two -- EntryHere the fun starts.
Have your friend lay prone on the bed, or even better, get down "on all fours".
Optionally, place a couple pillows beneath him to make him more comfortable.
Now position yourself behind him, and spread his asscheeks.
Apply lubricant, generously, to both your sexrod, and his pit of pleasure.
It is advisable to stick your fingers partially inside in his anus, to make sure that the entire edge of the entry is covered.Your penis must be fully erect in order to make a sucessful entry.
If you are not already "hard as a rock", you may rub your penis in his asscrack, while tweaking his nipples (or stroking his cock), and saying intimidating things, such as "I am going to make you squeal like a pig, boy.
Squeal, like a pig!
"When your sexstick is sufficiently engorged with blood, it is time to being entry.
Place the head of your cock firmly against his brown anal starfish.
Begin applying firm pressure forwards, optionally using your hand to guide your dick on a true course into sodomy.
Your friend is most likely moaning in agony or yelping, and you may either ignore this, or in a snide tone, say "You like that, bitch?
"When your penis is in, move on to the next step.Step Three -- Hardcore AssrammingThis is fairly simple.
Move your dick around in his ass, towards and then back, at varying speeds.
If for some reason your dick pops out, put in back in, undaunted.
Continue pumping and thrusting until you feel you are ready to move on to Step Four.Step Four -- OrgasmWhen ready to blow your load, use this command:\% stdout &gt; assThis redirects your standard output stream into your friend's pink tunnel of XXXX.
Enter the command, then with one final thrust, placing the entire length of your cock inside his body.
Your penis will then eject about a quart of sticky white semen, accompanied by tremendous pleasure.Step Five -- CleanupIf you wore a condom, cleanup is simple.
Remove the condom and toss it out your window.
Then sop up any other jizz, anal juice, XXXX, or lubricant with Brawny(R) brand paper towels.If you did not wear a condom, your friend will have a steady drip of cum out of his ass for the next few hours.
Tell him to "buck up" and stuff some toilet paper in his underwear.AfterwardCongra</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30382448</id>
	<title>Re:Linux howto</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259582640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I went to a LUG meeting a couple weeks ago (I'm a first timer).  I walked in and there were a bunch of dudes butt fucking each other.  I thought I had the wrong address or soemthing, but I guess they were just doing a linux demo, lol.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I went to a LUG meeting a couple weeks ago ( I 'm a first timer ) .
I walked in and there were a bunch of dudes butt fucking each other .
I thought I had the wrong address or soemthing , but I guess they were just doing a linux demo , lol .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I went to a LUG meeting a couple weeks ago (I'm a first timer).
I walked in and there were a bunch of dudes butt fucking each other.
I thought I had the wrong address or soemthing, but I guess they were just doing a linux demo, lol.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30381562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30382388</id>
	<title>Yes, that's what "open source" means.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259582400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know, generally speaking, if a big company wants to take a piece of "open source" hardware and make it cheaper, that would be a big win.   If you are making open source hardware to make money making hardware, this will be bad for you.   If you are making open source hardware to scratch an itch, this will be good for you.   Just make sure you get the license right--you don't want them to start making the hardware, and then close it up and use their revenue stream to pay lawyers to shut you out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know , generally speaking , if a big company wants to take a piece of " open source " hardware and make it cheaper , that would be a big win .
If you are making open source hardware to make money making hardware , this will be bad for you .
If you are making open source hardware to scratch an itch , this will be good for you .
Just make sure you get the license right--you do n't want them to start making the hardware , and then close it up and use their revenue stream to pay lawyers to shut you out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know, generally speaking, if a big company wants to take a piece of "open source" hardware and make it cheaper, that would be a big win.
If you are making open source hardware to make money making hardware, this will be bad for you.
If you are making open source hardware to scratch an itch, this will be good for you.
Just make sure you get the license right--you don't want them to start making the hardware, and then close it up and use their revenue stream to pay lawyers to shut you out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30383136</id>
	<title>Re:Open cars are hardly problems, much less new on</title>
	<author>LinuxIsGarbage</author>
	<datestamp>1259586600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's only in relatively recent times with the advent of computer control that the ability to hide the workings of the vehicle even became possible, and even more recently that these computers were used to try to create a "proprietary" environment where you couldn't have any random mechanic fix your car (and this attempt has largely failed).</p></div><p>With the likes of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On-board\_diagnostics" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">OBD / OBD-II</a> [wikipedia.org] Any old back yard mechanic can see what ails the car (in the electronic control system). I mean, yes, usually you can only get the computer from the OEM, but you can still rebuild the engine, transmission, alternator, lower control arm, etc. And if it tells you an Oxygen sensor is faulting, you can test and replace the sensor on your own.</p><p>With some companies, like Chrysler, you don't even need to buy a scan tool to get the codes, you can just cycle the key ON-OFF-ON-OFF-ON really quickly and it will display the codes on the digital odometer, or flash the code on the check engine light for cars not equipped with a digital odometer.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's only in relatively recent times with the advent of computer control that the ability to hide the workings of the vehicle even became possible , and even more recently that these computers were used to try to create a " proprietary " environment where you could n't have any random mechanic fix your car ( and this attempt has largely failed ) .With the likes of OBD / OBD-II [ wikipedia.org ] Any old back yard mechanic can see what ails the car ( in the electronic control system ) .
I mean , yes , usually you can only get the computer from the OEM , but you can still rebuild the engine , transmission , alternator , lower control arm , etc .
And if it tells you an Oxygen sensor is faulting , you can test and replace the sensor on your own.With some companies , like Chrysler , you do n't even need to buy a scan tool to get the codes , you can just cycle the key ON-OFF-ON-OFF-ON really quickly and it will display the codes on the digital odometer , or flash the code on the check engine light for cars not equipped with a digital odometer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's only in relatively recent times with the advent of computer control that the ability to hide the workings of the vehicle even became possible, and even more recently that these computers were used to try to create a "proprietary" environment where you couldn't have any random mechanic fix your car (and this attempt has largely failed).With the likes of OBD / OBD-II [wikipedia.org] Any old back yard mechanic can see what ails the car (in the electronic control system).
I mean, yes, usually you can only get the computer from the OEM, but you can still rebuild the engine, transmission, alternator, lower control arm, etc.
And if it tells you an Oxygen sensor is faulting, you can test and replace the sensor on your own.With some companies, like Chrysler, you don't even need to buy a scan tool to get the codes, you can just cycle the key ON-OFF-ON-OFF-ON really quickly and it will display the codes on the digital odometer, or flash the code on the check engine light for cars not equipped with a digital odometer.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30381776</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30382582</id>
	<title>The best way...</title>
	<author>Jay L</author>
	<datestamp>1259583360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>economies of scale... safety... liability... So what's the best way to address these issues?</p></div></blockquote><p>A Slashdot comment thread, I should think.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>economies of scale... safety... liability... So what 's the best way to address these issues ? A Slashdot comment thread , I should think .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>economies of scale... safety... liability... So what's the best way to address these issues?A Slashdot comment thread, I should think.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30381790</id>
	<title>wrong question</title>
	<author>wizardforce</author>
	<datestamp>1259579400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>For example, should competing big companies be allowed to use their economies of scale to make and sell cheaper products based on open hardware designs developed by small start-ups without payment?</p></div></blockquote><p> Hardware isn't special in requiring money/time to develop so why is it that this question only really gets asked when an open philosophy is applied to physical objects?</p><blockquote><div><p>There's also the problem that hacking designs for physical objects like open source cars may have safety implications</p></div></blockquote><p> No not really, any liability would presumably be on the one that took the blueprints and actually build the device.  After all, it is an open deisgn that can be modified by the manufacturer of choice.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For example , should competing big companies be allowed to use their economies of scale to make and sell cheaper products based on open hardware designs developed by small start-ups without payment ?
Hardware is n't special in requiring money/time to develop so why is it that this question only really gets asked when an open philosophy is applied to physical objects ? There 's also the problem that hacking designs for physical objects like open source cars may have safety implications No not really , any liability would presumably be on the one that took the blueprints and actually build the device .
After all , it is an open deisgn that can be modified by the manufacturer of choice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For example, should competing big companies be allowed to use their economies of scale to make and sell cheaper products based on open hardware designs developed by small start-ups without payment?
Hardware isn't special in requiring money/time to develop so why is it that this question only really gets asked when an open philosophy is applied to physical objects?There's also the problem that hacking designs for physical objects like open source cars may have safety implications No not really, any liability would presumably be on the one that took the blueprints and actually build the device.
After all, it is an open deisgn that can be modified by the manufacturer of choice.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30382158</id>
	<title>Re:wrong question</title>
	<author>betterunixthanunix</author>
	<datestamp>1259581260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Hardware isn't special in requiring money/time to develop so why is it that this question only really gets asked when an open philosophy is applied to physical objects?"<br> <br>

Because it takes money to produce copies of hardware, far more than the small utility costs (power etc.) needed to copy software.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Hardware is n't special in requiring money/time to develop so why is it that this question only really gets asked when an open philosophy is applied to physical objects ?
" Because it takes money to produce copies of hardware , far more than the small utility costs ( power etc .
) needed to copy software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Hardware isn't special in requiring money/time to develop so why is it that this question only really gets asked when an open philosophy is applied to physical objects?
" 

Because it takes money to produce copies of hardware, far more than the small utility costs (power etc.
) needed to copy software.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30381790</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30382120</id>
	<title>It's not a question of open or closed.</title>
	<author>Eosha</author>
	<datestamp>1259581080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The critical moment is when something is offered for sale. If I build an open design car for my own use, and it fails miserably, it's my own dumb fault. However, as soon as I sell that car to someone else, I am warranting it to be a saleable product, which carries a number of legal implications. To a greater or lesser degree, I am liable for its performance.</p><p>The underlying problem isn't "open" or "closed" design, it's that when you sell something you're liable for it. To be willing to sell something, companies need to do a lot of work to ensure that the product is safe, in many cases far more work than creating the product in the first place. That being the case, there is little financial motive for openness and a large financial motive for keeping it proprietary.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The critical moment is when something is offered for sale .
If I build an open design car for my own use , and it fails miserably , it 's my own dumb fault .
However , as soon as I sell that car to someone else , I am warranting it to be a saleable product , which carries a number of legal implications .
To a greater or lesser degree , I am liable for its performance.The underlying problem is n't " open " or " closed " design , it 's that when you sell something you 're liable for it .
To be willing to sell something , companies need to do a lot of work to ensure that the product is safe , in many cases far more work than creating the product in the first place .
That being the case , there is little financial motive for openness and a large financial motive for keeping it proprietary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The critical moment is when something is offered for sale.
If I build an open design car for my own use, and it fails miserably, it's my own dumb fault.
However, as soon as I sell that car to someone else, I am warranting it to be a saleable product, which carries a number of legal implications.
To a greater or lesser degree, I am liable for its performance.The underlying problem isn't "open" or "closed" design, it's that when you sell something you're liable for it.
To be willing to sell something, companies need to do a lot of work to ensure that the product is safe, in many cases far more work than creating the product in the first place.
That being the case, there is little financial motive for openness and a large financial motive for keeping it proprietary.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30383356</id>
	<title>Little Knowledge, Big Danger</title>
	<author>labnet</author>
	<datestamp>1259588100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is a good example of where a little bit of knowledge can be dangerous.<br>Developing electronics used to be easy. It still can be except for one big area. Compliance.<br>For us to release a product (ie distribute outside the lab), there are a raft of conformance tests a device must pass to be legally sold/used.</p><p>EMC is one of the hardest and there are a myriad of traps for the inexperienced. eg<br>
&nbsp; - Innerlayer pre peg spacing changes on your PCB<br>
&nbsp; - Subtle changes in track layout<br>
&nbsp; - Dielectric of capacitors<br>
&nbsp; - Die shrink (ie your unit passes, but then a functionally equivilent die shunk part will make you fail because of faster switching)<br>
&nbsp; - Chassis interaction with PCB<br>
&nbsp; - Changes in cable harness layout<br>
&nbsp; - Change in brand of resonators<br>
&nbsp; - etc etc</p><p>Depending on the product you may need to comply for<br>
&nbsp; - Emissions (all cases)<br>
&nbsp; - Susceptibility (EU, all cases)<br>
&nbsp; - Intended Emissions (for radio devices)<br>
&nbsp; - Safety (for non SELV device)<br>
&nbsp; - Mains tests (surge, dips, spikes etc)<br>
&nbsp; - ESD testing (high voltage discharges)<br>Those are the main ones, but there are many more depending on end use.</p><p>So you may have a schematic, but the implementation of that schematic into hardware requires lots of expensive testing before it can be used in the real world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a good example of where a little bit of knowledge can be dangerous.Developing electronics used to be easy .
It still can be except for one big area .
Compliance.For us to release a product ( ie distribute outside the lab ) , there are a raft of conformance tests a device must pass to be legally sold/used.EMC is one of the hardest and there are a myriad of traps for the inexperienced .
eg   - Innerlayer pre peg spacing changes on your PCB   - Subtle changes in track layout   - Dielectric of capacitors   - Die shrink ( ie your unit passes , but then a functionally equivilent die shunk part will make you fail because of faster switching )   - Chassis interaction with PCB   - Changes in cable harness layout   - Change in brand of resonators   - etc etcDepending on the product you may need to comply for   - Emissions ( all cases )   - Susceptibility ( EU , all cases )   - Intended Emissions ( for radio devices )   - Safety ( for non SELV device )   - Mains tests ( surge , dips , spikes etc )   - ESD testing ( high voltage discharges ) Those are the main ones , but there are many more depending on end use.So you may have a schematic , but the implementation of that schematic into hardware requires lots of expensive testing before it can be used in the real world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a good example of where a little bit of knowledge can be dangerous.Developing electronics used to be easy.
It still can be except for one big area.
Compliance.For us to release a product (ie distribute outside the lab), there are a raft of conformance tests a device must pass to be legally sold/used.EMC is one of the hardest and there are a myriad of traps for the inexperienced.
eg
  - Innerlayer pre peg spacing changes on your PCB
  - Subtle changes in track layout
  - Dielectric of capacitors
  - Die shrink (ie your unit passes, but then a functionally equivilent die shunk part will make you fail because of faster switching)
  - Chassis interaction with PCB
  - Changes in cable harness layout
  - Change in brand of resonators
  - etc etcDepending on the product you may need to comply for
  - Emissions (all cases)
  - Susceptibility (EU, all cases)
  - Intended Emissions (for radio devices)
  - Safety (for non SELV device)
  - Mains tests (surge, dips, spikes etc)
  - ESD testing (high voltage discharges)Those are the main ones, but there are many more depending on end use.So you may have a schematic, but the implementation of that schematic into hardware requires lots of expensive testing before it can be used in the real world.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30382644</id>
	<title>Custom vehicles and nuclear cars</title>
	<author>Lemming Mark</author>
	<datestamp>1259583780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I understand in the UK that there's a specific inspection routine that custom vehicles can go through.  This guy made a supermarket ride for children into a road-legal car and had it approved via that process IIRC: <a href="http://www.egmcartech.com/2009/05/14/man-builds-worlds-smallest-street-legal-car-gets-70-mpg/" title="egmcartech.com">http://www.egmcartech.com/2009/05/14/man-builds-worlds-smallest-street-legal-car-gets-70-mpg/</a> [egmcartech.com]</p><p>That's the normal way of getting road legality for an unusual vehicle.  There might be a less conventional method: I once read that there is a nuclear-powered car somewhere in the UK which, for some bizarre reason, was granted a royal dispensation to allow it on the roads - thereby bypassing the normal regulations.  That probably also makes it a bit awkward to revoke; I imagine if it's true we just rely on the person who's got it being a good sport and keeping it in the garage.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I understand in the UK that there 's a specific inspection routine that custom vehicles can go through .
This guy made a supermarket ride for children into a road-legal car and had it approved via that process IIRC : http : //www.egmcartech.com/2009/05/14/man-builds-worlds-smallest-street-legal-car-gets-70-mpg/ [ egmcartech.com ] That 's the normal way of getting road legality for an unusual vehicle .
There might be a less conventional method : I once read that there is a nuclear-powered car somewhere in the UK which , for some bizarre reason , was granted a royal dispensation to allow it on the roads - thereby bypassing the normal regulations .
That probably also makes it a bit awkward to revoke ; I imagine if it 's true we just rely on the person who 's got it being a good sport and keeping it in the garage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I understand in the UK that there's a specific inspection routine that custom vehicles can go through.
This guy made a supermarket ride for children into a road-legal car and had it approved via that process IIRC: http://www.egmcartech.com/2009/05/14/man-builds-worlds-smallest-street-legal-car-gets-70-mpg/ [egmcartech.com]That's the normal way of getting road legality for an unusual vehicle.
There might be a less conventional method: I once read that there is a nuclear-powered car somewhere in the UK which, for some bizarre reason, was granted a royal dispensation to allow it on the roads - thereby bypassing the normal regulations.
That probably also makes it a bit awkward to revoke; I imagine if it's true we just rely on the person who's got it being a good sport and keeping it in the garage.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30381776</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30383758</id>
	<title>On electronics, and why prototyping is hard.</title>
	<author>queazocotal</author>
	<datestamp>1259590560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's take for example the OpenMoko Freerunner.<br>It's a mobile phone, with open schematics.</p><p>How much would it cost to make one?</p><p>It sells for $500 or so, so you might guess $250.</p><p>But - that's somewhat different to the question of what it would take to make one.</p><p><a href="http://www.pcbcart.com/" title="pcbcart.com">http://www.pcbcart.com/</a> [pcbcart.com] - as a reasonable priced chinese PCB service I've looked at - though not used - in the past.<br>For one 50*100mm 8 layer PCB (what you need if you're going to put dense chips on both sides) - they charge $40 for 1-5  PCBs.<br>But - with a $200 setup cost.</p><p>So - $250 for the first PCB.<br>Parts cost for ten thousand phones may be $150 or so.<br>But - buying ones of everything, all the parts will cost you $400 very optimistically.</p><p>Assembling and soldering this together - there are well over a hundred parts - say $100.</p><p>So, that's $750 to get your first prototype.</p><p>It doesn't boot.<br>After a couple of weeks and several dead-ends, you find you forgot to connect a pin with a slightly ambiguous name on the datasheet that turns out not to be as unimportant as you thought.</p><p>So, if you can't work round it - and it turns out that it's a buried high-speed node under several layers of PCB that is completely inacessible, you need a new PCB made.</p><p>Another $750 for the whole lot again. Oh - you may try to reuse some of the parts - but all of these parts do not warranty more than one use, and with a 1\% failure rate on removed parts, and the fact that a failed part may stall you for weeks - do you want to do that?</p><p>So, you get your new PCB, populate it, and it boots and prints 'loading the lin' and crashes.</p><p>After another weeks work, you work out that your routing of the RAM tracks has been slightly out of spec, and that unless you clock the system at under 12MHz, it doesn't work at all.</p><p>So, you test all you can at 12MHz, and get another board done.</p><p>After a week of wondering why this board doesn't work, you find that one component was installed backwards. Fixing that reveals...</p><p>For example, the freerunner release candidate boards had over 7 revisions - and there are still issues with it, and this was a professionally made board made by an actual factory that does these sorts of things all the time.</p><p>This hasn't even touched on the sourcing of parts.<br>For many parts this isn't an issue.<br>You can get most chips just fine from many sources online.</p><p>Some parts and modules however - in the mass produced and phone sector - are simply unavailable unless you are willing to order 100000. You can't even get docs unless the companies think you will order. And any docs you do get will be under NDA.</p><p>Some of these have no easy alternative. You simply can't buy a mobile phone radio chipset for example. You can buy modules - which may have a 200\% price, 200\% volume penalty.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's take for example the OpenMoko Freerunner.It 's a mobile phone , with open schematics.How much would it cost to make one ? It sells for $ 500 or so , so you might guess $ 250.But - that 's somewhat different to the question of what it would take to make one.http : //www.pcbcart.com/ [ pcbcart.com ] - as a reasonable priced chinese PCB service I 've looked at - though not used - in the past.For one 50 * 100mm 8 layer PCB ( what you need if you 're going to put dense chips on both sides ) - they charge $ 40 for 1-5 PCBs.But - with a $ 200 setup cost.So - $ 250 for the first PCB.Parts cost for ten thousand phones may be $ 150 or so.But - buying ones of everything , all the parts will cost you $ 400 very optimistically.Assembling and soldering this together - there are well over a hundred parts - say $ 100.So , that 's $ 750 to get your first prototype.It does n't boot.After a couple of weeks and several dead-ends , you find you forgot to connect a pin with a slightly ambiguous name on the datasheet that turns out not to be as unimportant as you thought.So , if you ca n't work round it - and it turns out that it 's a buried high-speed node under several layers of PCB that is completely inacessible , you need a new PCB made.Another $ 750 for the whole lot again .
Oh - you may try to reuse some of the parts - but all of these parts do not warranty more than one use , and with a 1 \ % failure rate on removed parts , and the fact that a failed part may stall you for weeks - do you want to do that ? So , you get your new PCB , populate it , and it boots and prints 'loading the lin ' and crashes.After another weeks work , you work out that your routing of the RAM tracks has been slightly out of spec , and that unless you clock the system at under 12MHz , it does n't work at all.So , you test all you can at 12MHz , and get another board done.After a week of wondering why this board does n't work , you find that one component was installed backwards .
Fixing that reveals...For example , the freerunner release candidate boards had over 7 revisions - and there are still issues with it , and this was a professionally made board made by an actual factory that does these sorts of things all the time.This has n't even touched on the sourcing of parts.For many parts this is n't an issue.You can get most chips just fine from many sources online.Some parts and modules however - in the mass produced and phone sector - are simply unavailable unless you are willing to order 100000 .
You ca n't even get docs unless the companies think you will order .
And any docs you do get will be under NDA.Some of these have no easy alternative .
You simply ca n't buy a mobile phone radio chipset for example .
You can buy modules - which may have a 200 \ % price , 200 \ % volume penalty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's take for example the OpenMoko Freerunner.It's a mobile phone, with open schematics.How much would it cost to make one?It sells for $500 or so, so you might guess $250.But - that's somewhat different to the question of what it would take to make one.http://www.pcbcart.com/ [pcbcart.com] - as a reasonable priced chinese PCB service I've looked at - though not used - in the past.For one 50*100mm 8 layer PCB (what you need if you're going to put dense chips on both sides) - they charge $40 for 1-5  PCBs.But - with a $200 setup cost.So - $250 for the first PCB.Parts cost for ten thousand phones may be $150 or so.But - buying ones of everything, all the parts will cost you $400 very optimistically.Assembling and soldering this together - there are well over a hundred parts - say $100.So, that's $750 to get your first prototype.It doesn't boot.After a couple of weeks and several dead-ends, you find you forgot to connect a pin with a slightly ambiguous name on the datasheet that turns out not to be as unimportant as you thought.So, if you can't work round it - and it turns out that it's a buried high-speed node under several layers of PCB that is completely inacessible, you need a new PCB made.Another $750 for the whole lot again.
Oh - you may try to reuse some of the parts - but all of these parts do not warranty more than one use, and with a 1\% failure rate on removed parts, and the fact that a failed part may stall you for weeks - do you want to do that?So, you get your new PCB, populate it, and it boots and prints 'loading the lin' and crashes.After another weeks work, you work out that your routing of the RAM tracks has been slightly out of spec, and that unless you clock the system at under 12MHz, it doesn't work at all.So, you test all you can at 12MHz, and get another board done.After a week of wondering why this board doesn't work, you find that one component was installed backwards.
Fixing that reveals...For example, the freerunner release candidate boards had over 7 revisions - and there are still issues with it, and this was a professionally made board made by an actual factory that does these sorts of things all the time.This hasn't even touched on the sourcing of parts.For many parts this isn't an issue.You can get most chips just fine from many sources online.Some parts and modules however - in the mass produced and phone sector - are simply unavailable unless you are willing to order 100000.
You can't even get docs unless the companies think you will order.
And any docs you do get will be under NDA.Some of these have no easy alternative.
You simply can't buy a mobile phone radio chipset for example.
You can buy modules - which may have a 200\% price, 200\% volume penalty.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30384268</id>
	<title>Re:Commercial Free != Open Source?</title>
	<author>ckaminski</author>
	<datestamp>1259595000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No friggin' clue... considering Atmel is pretty friendly to the open source crowd...</htmltext>
<tokenext>No friggin ' clue... considering Atmel is pretty friendly to the open source crowd.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No friggin' clue... considering Atmel is pretty friendly to the open source crowd...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30381976</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30382362</id>
	<title>Re:I don't see any difference between software...</title>
	<author>tonyreadsnews</author>
	<datestamp>1259582280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Regarding 1:<br>
who gets sued when a design flaw is found, or a component referenced in the design doesn't hold up over the lifetime and a person dies. I don't have a feeling for how much OSS software is currently in that situation, but both would fall under this same issue, but it is something that hasn't really been explored. Is the project creator, the manufacturer, the guy who made a tweak that was accepted to the project the one at fault?<br> <br>
Regarding 2:<br>
Cost - the issue is in production (not development). In the software world distribution is relatively cheap, especially at low volumes of sale. For hardware it is quite the opposite. A company with more money can support a large quantity order, driving down the suppliers price for everything from components to final assembly. A small team or individual is then going to be at a disadvantage because they will generally not have the resources (or connections) to make that happen.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Regarding 1 : who gets sued when a design flaw is found , or a component referenced in the design does n't hold up over the lifetime and a person dies .
I do n't have a feeling for how much OSS software is currently in that situation , but both would fall under this same issue , but it is something that has n't really been explored .
Is the project creator , the manufacturer , the guy who made a tweak that was accepted to the project the one at fault ?
Regarding 2 : Cost - the issue is in production ( not development ) .
In the software world distribution is relatively cheap , especially at low volumes of sale .
For hardware it is quite the opposite .
A company with more money can support a large quantity order , driving down the suppliers price for everything from components to final assembly .
A small team or individual is then going to be at a disadvantage because they will generally not have the resources ( or connections ) to make that happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Regarding 1:
who gets sued when a design flaw is found, or a component referenced in the design doesn't hold up over the lifetime and a person dies.
I don't have a feeling for how much OSS software is currently in that situation, but both would fall under this same issue, but it is something that hasn't really been explored.
Is the project creator, the manufacturer, the guy who made a tweak that was accepted to the project the one at fault?
Regarding 2:
Cost - the issue is in production (not development).
In the software world distribution is relatively cheap, especially at low volumes of sale.
For hardware it is quite the opposite.
A company with more money can support a large quantity order, driving down the suppliers price for everything from components to final assembly.
A small team or individual is then going to be at a disadvantage because they will generally not have the resources (or connections) to make that happen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30381818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30386286</id>
	<title>whte\_rbt</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260443520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I really don't understand this issue at all: there is absolutely no difference to the situation given with open software. The only one: when dealing with 'real' things, people obviously seem to suddenly see the problems that arise by the concept of open intellectual property.</p><p>Companies do make money with software others developed for free and the same it would be with hardware. Who do licences enable to participate in that? The open project, not the folks that developed it. The question of safety issues does arise also with open software and also is answered already: open products are much safer than proprietary, because they do not follow the interest of a single person/organisation but the crowd, which has many different interests.</p><p>Last thing is technology (a previous comment was concerned about that...): open products generally have no real technology inside, mostly they're copies of proprietary products. Seems like technology can't be developed in an open way, only products. And this will also be the same with hardware: real knowledge (which is all Metadata) will be somewhere else but not in the CAD/VHDL files.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I really do n't understand this issue at all : there is absolutely no difference to the situation given with open software .
The only one : when dealing with 'real ' things , people obviously seem to suddenly see the problems that arise by the concept of open intellectual property.Companies do make money with software others developed for free and the same it would be with hardware .
Who do licences enable to participate in that ?
The open project , not the folks that developed it .
The question of safety issues does arise also with open software and also is answered already : open products are much safer than proprietary , because they do not follow the interest of a single person/organisation but the crowd , which has many different interests.Last thing is technology ( a previous comment was concerned about that... ) : open products generally have no real technology inside , mostly they 're copies of proprietary products .
Seems like technology ca n't be developed in an open way , only products .
And this will also be the same with hardware : real knowledge ( which is all Metadata ) will be somewhere else but not in the CAD/VHDL files .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really don't understand this issue at all: there is absolutely no difference to the situation given with open software.
The only one: when dealing with 'real' things, people obviously seem to suddenly see the problems that arise by the concept of open intellectual property.Companies do make money with software others developed for free and the same it would be with hardware.
Who do licences enable to participate in that?
The open project, not the folks that developed it.
The question of safety issues does arise also with open software and also is answered already: open products are much safer than proprietary, because they do not follow the interest of a single person/organisation but the crowd, which has many different interests.Last thing is technology (a previous comment was concerned about that...): open products generally have no real technology inside, mostly they're copies of proprietary products.
Seems like technology can't be developed in an open way, only products.
And this will also be the same with hardware: real knowledge (which is all Metadata) will be somewhere else but not in the CAD/VHDL files.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30382544</id>
	<title>You have to take it as it is</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259583180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You have to take it as it is. GPL code can be used to build the Great Firewall of China. Or for making a cheap nuclear bomb simulation. Likewise if the open hardware can be used by big companies under economies of scale without breaking the open nature of the hardware, then that has to be allowed.</p><p>As it is, if you're a small time operator you haven't a chance with closed hardware either. So you've lost nothing you had in only theoretical amounts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You have to take it as it is .
GPL code can be used to build the Great Firewall of China .
Or for making a cheap nuclear bomb simulation .
Likewise if the open hardware can be used by big companies under economies of scale without breaking the open nature of the hardware , then that has to be allowed.As it is , if you 're a small time operator you have n't a chance with closed hardware either .
So you 've lost nothing you had in only theoretical amounts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have to take it as it is.
GPL code can be used to build the Great Firewall of China.
Or for making a cheap nuclear bomb simulation.
Likewise if the open hardware can be used by big companies under economies of scale without breaking the open nature of the hardware, then that has to be allowed.As it is, if you're a small time operator you haven't a chance with closed hardware either.
So you've lost nothing you had in only theoretical amounts.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30381934</id>
	<title>Uh... yah?</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1259580180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>For example, should competing big companies be allowed to use their economies of scale to make and sell cheaper products based on open hardware designs developed by small start-ups without payment?</i></p><p>Unless you define "open" as "not open", then the answer to this is obviously yes.</p><p>If you want to work out some other kind of deal, then please don't call it "open-" anything, it'll just confuse matters.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For example , should competing big companies be allowed to use their economies of scale to make and sell cheaper products based on open hardware designs developed by small start-ups without payment ? Unless you define " open " as " not open " , then the answer to this is obviously yes.If you want to work out some other kind of deal , then please do n't call it " open- " anything , it 'll just confuse matters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For example, should competing big companies be allowed to use their economies of scale to make and sell cheaper products based on open hardware designs developed by small start-ups without payment?Unless you define "open" as "not open", then the answer to this is obviously yes.If you want to work out some other kind of deal, then please don't call it "open-" anything, it'll just confuse matters.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30382070</id>
	<title>Re:Open cars are hardly problems, much less new on</title>
	<author>ben\_kelley</author>
	<datestamp>1259580840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thanks for finding a way to get in a car analogy for this story. My faith in slashdot is renewed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks for finding a way to get in a car analogy for this story .
My faith in slashdot is renewed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks for finding a way to get in a car analogy for this story.
My faith in slashdot is renewed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30381776</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30381624</id>
	<title>open design</title>
	<author>TheSHAD0W</author>
	<datestamp>1259578620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's an "open design" for a reason.  Perhaps switch "open design" for "easy licensing options".  Further, unless a big company forks the project, the originator usually has some control over the progress of the project, which means their smaller product becomes a "reference platform" with some added value even if the bigger company has a somewhat cheaper version.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's an " open design " for a reason .
Perhaps switch " open design " for " easy licensing options " .
Further , unless a big company forks the project , the originator usually has some control over the progress of the project , which means their smaller product becomes a " reference platform " with some added value even if the bigger company has a somewhat cheaper version .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's an "open design" for a reason.
Perhaps switch "open design" for "easy licensing options".
Further, unless a big company forks the project, the originator usually has some control over the progress of the project, which means their smaller product becomes a "reference platform" with some added value even if the bigger company has a somewhat cheaper version.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30383812</id>
	<title>Re:wrong question</title>
	<author>AK Marc</author>
	<datestamp>1259590920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Hardware isn't special in requiring money/time to develop so why is it that this question only really gets asked when an open philosophy is applied to physical objects?</i> <br> <br>The cost to compile software is near zero. The cost to compile hardware can be billions.  If the source code for the hardware is free, that won't change the much larger compile cost.  And, if you can make the source code, but not afford to compile it, then you can *never* get any value back from the final product.  With a near-zero cost of compiling it, you can charge some trivial fee and get a return.<br> <br>That you pretend you can't see a difference between open source software and open source plans for an airplane and think that an unattended 30 minute compile on commodity hardware is the same as assembling an air worthy aircraft indicates you are the one that doesn't understand the issues involved, and that's why you are always confused when others bring it up.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hardware is n't special in requiring money/time to develop so why is it that this question only really gets asked when an open philosophy is applied to physical objects ?
The cost to compile software is near zero .
The cost to compile hardware can be billions .
If the source code for the hardware is free , that wo n't change the much larger compile cost .
And , if you can make the source code , but not afford to compile it , then you can * never * get any value back from the final product .
With a near-zero cost of compiling it , you can charge some trivial fee and get a return .
That you pretend you ca n't see a difference between open source software and open source plans for an airplane and think that an unattended 30 minute compile on commodity hardware is the same as assembling an air worthy aircraft indicates you are the one that does n't understand the issues involved , and that 's why you are always confused when others bring it up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hardware isn't special in requiring money/time to develop so why is it that this question only really gets asked when an open philosophy is applied to physical objects?
The cost to compile software is near zero.
The cost to compile hardware can be billions.
If the source code for the hardware is free, that won't change the much larger compile cost.
And, if you can make the source code, but not afford to compile it, then you can *never* get any value back from the final product.
With a near-zero cost of compiling it, you can charge some trivial fee and get a return.
That you pretend you can't see a difference between open source software and open source plans for an airplane and think that an unattended 30 minute compile on commodity hardware is the same as assembling an air worthy aircraft indicates you are the one that doesn't understand the issues involved, and that's why you are always confused when others bring it up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30381790</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30381862</id>
	<title>Popular Mechanics</title>
	<author>argent</author>
	<datestamp>1259579760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think "open source hardware" is really that much like "open source software" unless you've got matter duplicators (like in Ralph Williams' story "Business as Usual, During Alterations"). It's more like publishing plans in Popular Mechanics or Howto books.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think " open source hardware " is really that much like " open source software " unless you 've got matter duplicators ( like in Ralph Williams ' story " Business as Usual , During Alterations " ) .
It 's more like publishing plans in Popular Mechanics or Howto books .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think "open source hardware" is really that much like "open source software" unless you've got matter duplicators (like in Ralph Williams' story "Business as Usual, During Alterations").
It's more like publishing plans in Popular Mechanics or Howto books.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30384932</id>
	<title>What we really need are openly documented hardware</title>
	<author>BhaKi</author>
	<datestamp>1259602140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Who asked open-source hardware? I just want hardware whose programming interfaces are completely documented.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who asked open-source hardware ?
I just want hardware whose programming interfaces are completely documented .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who asked open-source hardware?
I just want hardware whose programming interfaces are completely documented.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30384864</id>
	<title>mod doOwn</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259601240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>they lear8 from 0ur</htmltext>
<tokenext>they lear8 from 0ur</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they lear8 from 0ur</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30382556</id>
	<title>Re:wrong question</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1259583240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><p>For example, should competing big companies be allowed to use their economies of scale to make and sell cheaper products based on open hardware designs developed by small start-ups without payment?</p></div></blockquote><p> Hardware isn't special in requiring money/time to develop so why is it that this question only really gets asked when an open philosophy is applied to physical objects?</p><blockquote><div><p>There's also the problem that hacking designs for physical objects like open source cars may have safety implications</p></div></blockquote><p> No not really, any liability would presumably be on the one that took the blueprints and actually build the device.  After all, it is an open deisgn that can be modified by the manufacturer of choice.</p></div><p>I agree on the 2nd point. There wont be liability for a *design*.  Its the people that build it that are responsible.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For example , should competing big companies be allowed to use their economies of scale to make and sell cheaper products based on open hardware designs developed by small start-ups without payment ?
Hardware is n't special in requiring money/time to develop so why is it that this question only really gets asked when an open philosophy is applied to physical objects ? There 's also the problem that hacking designs for physical objects like open source cars may have safety implications No not really , any liability would presumably be on the one that took the blueprints and actually build the device .
After all , it is an open deisgn that can be modified by the manufacturer of choice.I agree on the 2nd point .
There wont be liability for a * design * .
Its the people that build it that are responsible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For example, should competing big companies be allowed to use their economies of scale to make and sell cheaper products based on open hardware designs developed by small start-ups without payment?
Hardware isn't special in requiring money/time to develop so why is it that this question only really gets asked when an open philosophy is applied to physical objects?There's also the problem that hacking designs for physical objects like open source cars may have safety implications No not really, any liability would presumably be on the one that took the blueprints and actually build the device.
After all, it is an open deisgn that can be modified by the manufacturer of choice.I agree on the 2nd point.
There wont be liability for a *design*.
Its the people that build it that are responsible.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30381790</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2141250_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30382556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30381790
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2141250_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30382174
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30381934
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2141250_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30382618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30381794
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2141250_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30382070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30381776
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2141250_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30382644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30381776
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2141250_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30384268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30381976
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2141250_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30383136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30381776
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2141250_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30383812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30381790
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2141250_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30382362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30381818
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2141250_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30382448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30381562
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2141250_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30383052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30382138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30381776
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2141250_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30382158
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30381790
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2141250_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30383218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30382120
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2141250_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30381998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30381564
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2141250_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30381754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30381624
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2141250_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30385942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30381818
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2141250_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30386098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30382138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30381776
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2141250_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30399204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30381790
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2141250_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30382100
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30381624
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_2141250.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30381976
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30384268
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_2141250.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30384300
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_2141250.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30381698
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_2141250.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30382160
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_2141250.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30381818
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30385942
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30382362
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_2141250.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30381624
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30381754
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30382100
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_2141250.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30382120
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30383218
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_2141250.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30381776
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30382070
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30382644
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30383136
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30382138
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30383052
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30386098
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_2141250.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30381564
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30381998
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_2141250.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30381862
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_2141250.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30383356
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_2141250.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30383758
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_2141250.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30381966
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_2141250.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30381794
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30382618
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_2141250.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30381790
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30382158
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30399204
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30382556
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30383812
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_2141250.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30382388
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_2141250.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30381934
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30382174
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_2141250.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30381562
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2141250.30382448
</commentlist>
</conversation>
