<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_14_1812252</id>
	<title>Oracle Responds To MySQL Purchase Concerns</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1260818580000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Luke has no name writes <i>"Yesterday we discussed MySQL founder <a href="http://developers.slashdot.org/story/09/12/13/1530211/Widenius-Warns-Against-MySQL-Falling-Into-Oracles-Hands">Monty Widenius's objections</a> to the acquisition of MySQL by Oracle. Today, <a href="http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/Oracle-Corporation-NASDAQ-ORCL-1090000.html">Oracle released a statement to address some of these issues</a>. Among their commitments, Oracle says they intend to continue releasing MySQL under the GPL, allow vendors to produce 'any-license' third-party engines, maintain the Reference Manual, invest millions into the product, and create a 'customer advisory board.' The pledges are <a href="http://www.networkworld.com/news/2009/121409-oracles-pledges-on-mysql-are.html">still not enough for some</a>, however."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Luke has no name writes " Yesterday we discussed MySQL founder Monty Widenius 's objections to the acquisition of MySQL by Oracle .
Today , Oracle released a statement to address some of these issues .
Among their commitments , Oracle says they intend to continue releasing MySQL under the GPL , allow vendors to produce 'any-license ' third-party engines , maintain the Reference Manual , invest millions into the product , and create a 'customer advisory board .
' The pledges are still not enough for some , however .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Luke has no name writes "Yesterday we discussed MySQL founder Monty Widenius's objections to the acquisition of MySQL by Oracle.
Today, Oracle released a statement to address some of these issues.
Among their commitments, Oracle says they intend to continue releasing MySQL under the GPL, allow vendors to produce 'any-license' third-party engines, maintain the Reference Manual, invest millions into the product, and create a 'customer advisory board.
' The pledges are still not enough for some, however.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434994</id>
	<title>Re:Why Not Reserve Judgment?</title>
	<author>oh\_my\_080980980</author>
	<datestamp>1260782400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Can you read!
<br> <br>
GPL supporters support Oracle purchasing MySQL for the very reason that the GPL protects MySQL.  Oracle cannot take back the code. Oracle cannot prevent people from using MySQL.  Oracle cannot prevent MySQL from forking.
<br> <br>
However, the founders of MySQL do not like the GPL and  wish to wall off the code from MySQL.
<br> <br>
Oracle is not the problem, it's the anti-GPL crowed that is the problem.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can you read !
GPL supporters support Oracle purchasing MySQL for the very reason that the GPL protects MySQL .
Oracle can not take back the code .
Oracle can not prevent people from using MySQL .
Oracle can not prevent MySQL from forking .
However , the founders of MySQL do not like the GPL and wish to wall off the code from MySQL .
Oracle is not the problem , it 's the anti-GPL crowed that is the problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can you read!
GPL supporters support Oracle purchasing MySQL for the very reason that the GPL protects MySQL.
Oracle cannot take back the code.
Oracle cannot prevent people from using MySQL.
Oracle cannot prevent MySQL from forking.
However, the founders of MySQL do not like the GPL and  wish to wall off the code from MySQL.
Oracle is not the problem, it's the anti-GPL crowed that is the problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434554</id>
	<title>Why bother with MySQL?</title>
	<author>sproketboy</author>
	<datestamp>1260823440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know I'm going to be modded down for this but why bother with MySQL at all? There are other better free databases out there.  MySQL is still not even ANSI 92 compliant yet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know I 'm going to be modded down for this but why bother with MySQL at all ?
There are other better free databases out there .
MySQL is still not even ANSI 92 compliant yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know I'm going to be modded down for this but why bother with MySQL at all?
There are other better free databases out there.
MySQL is still not even ANSI 92 compliant yet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434494</id>
	<title>Pledges not enough for some...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260823020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>no kidding. If you are unreasonable enough or you have absolutely no trust in Oracle, nothing will get rid of your concerns.</p><p>The source code being under the GPL currently so you could fork it if needed (what the GPL was intended for in the first place) isn't enough for some people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>no kidding .
If you are unreasonable enough or you have absolutely no trust in Oracle , nothing will get rid of your concerns.The source code being under the GPL currently so you could fork it if needed ( what the GPL was intended for in the first place ) is n't enough for some people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>no kidding.
If you are unreasonable enough or you have absolutely no trust in Oracle, nothing will get rid of your concerns.The source code being under the GPL currently so you could fork it if needed (what the GPL was intended for in the first place) isn't enough for some people.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30437726</id>
	<title>Re:Makes sense</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260795900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>On the plus side- if Oracle can actually provide an easy to use path to migrate from MySQL to Oracle or to provide some kind of abstraction layer that would let you use MySQL-backed applications with Oracle I would cheer them to no end.</p></div><p>Here's the biggest win I see with Oracle acquiring MySQL. If Oracle made their product drop-in compatable with MySQL for clients, while providing a conversion/upgrade process for servers, they would made huge dollars with people upgrading to get away from limitations in MySQL.</p><p>In my opinion, MySQL's greatest problem is lock-in. MySQL can't be replaced with Oracle anywhere I have seen it used, and in all (but one) of my jobs, we've needed the advanced features of Oracle and were willing to pay for it. The reason we weren't able to convert? Because of the development time to rework everything to Oracle's client (library/semantics). If Oracle provided a no-code-change upgrade to MySQL, they will clean up upgrading people to their flagship product.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>On the plus side- if Oracle can actually provide an easy to use path to migrate from MySQL to Oracle or to provide some kind of abstraction layer that would let you use MySQL-backed applications with Oracle I would cheer them to no end.Here 's the biggest win I see with Oracle acquiring MySQL .
If Oracle made their product drop-in compatable with MySQL for clients , while providing a conversion/upgrade process for servers , they would made huge dollars with people upgrading to get away from limitations in MySQL.In my opinion , MySQL 's greatest problem is lock-in .
MySQL ca n't be replaced with Oracle anywhere I have seen it used , and in all ( but one ) of my jobs , we 've needed the advanced features of Oracle and were willing to pay for it .
The reason we were n't able to convert ?
Because of the development time to rework everything to Oracle 's client ( library/semantics ) .
If Oracle provided a no-code-change upgrade to MySQL , they will clean up upgrading people to their flagship product .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the plus side- if Oracle can actually provide an easy to use path to migrate from MySQL to Oracle or to provide some kind of abstraction layer that would let you use MySQL-backed applications with Oracle I would cheer them to no end.Here's the biggest win I see with Oracle acquiring MySQL.
If Oracle made their product drop-in compatable with MySQL for clients, while providing a conversion/upgrade process for servers, they would made huge dollars with people upgrading to get away from limitations in MySQL.In my opinion, MySQL's greatest problem is lock-in.
MySQL can't be replaced with Oracle anywhere I have seen it used, and in all (but one) of my jobs, we've needed the advanced features of Oracle and were willing to pay for it.
The reason we weren't able to convert?
Because of the development time to rework everything to Oracle's client (library/semantics).
If Oracle provided a no-code-change upgrade to MySQL, they will clean up upgrading people to their flagship product.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434574</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30435892</id>
	<title>One word for those concerned about Oracle &amp; My</title>
	<author>jackspenn</author>
	<datestamp>1260787380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Fork.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fork .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fork.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434474</id>
	<title>Fork?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260822900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Would it not be a good idea to fork MySQL at this point? rather than relying on Oracle who pledge (which is not legally binding) to continue supporting MySQL and giving it away for free. Even though there is no compelling reason for them to unless they plan to assimilate it into their outrageously priced commercial database packages <br> <br>

Big companies like Oracle are just not to be trusted, any embracing they do must be seen as simply the first step to extending and extinguishing. It would be completely naive to think otherwise</htmltext>
<tokenext>Would it not be a good idea to fork MySQL at this point ?
rather than relying on Oracle who pledge ( which is not legally binding ) to continue supporting MySQL and giving it away for free .
Even though there is no compelling reason for them to unless they plan to assimilate it into their outrageously priced commercial database packages Big companies like Oracle are just not to be trusted , any embracing they do must be seen as simply the first step to extending and extinguishing .
It would be completely naive to think otherwise</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would it not be a good idea to fork MySQL at this point?
rather than relying on Oracle who pledge (which is not legally binding) to continue supporting MySQL and giving it away for free.
Even though there is no compelling reason for them to unless they plan to assimilate it into their outrageously priced commercial database packages  

Big companies like Oracle are just not to be trusted, any embracing they do must be seen as simply the first step to extending and extinguishing.
It would be completely naive to think otherwise</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30436194</id>
	<title>Re:Makes sense</title>
	<author>Midnight Thunder</author>
	<datestamp>1260788640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cost to build doesn't really matter. What does matter is perceived value. If it costs more to build than customers are willing to pay for, then you are screwed. If it costs less to build than customers are willing to pay for, then you have a winner.</p><p>Oracle might have their XE product, but what they really want is customers. It is better to have customers paying for something than have a product that is simply not selling, even if it is a small amount. Don't underestimate the number of companies willing to pony up for a service contract, just so they can reassure their investors/shareholders.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cost to build does n't really matter .
What does matter is perceived value .
If it costs more to build than customers are willing to pay for , then you are screwed .
If it costs less to build than customers are willing to pay for , then you have a winner.Oracle might have their XE product , but what they really want is customers .
It is better to have customers paying for something than have a product that is simply not selling , even if it is a small amount .
Do n't underestimate the number of companies willing to pony up for a service contract , just so they can reassure their investors/shareholders .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cost to build doesn't really matter.
What does matter is perceived value.
If it costs more to build than customers are willing to pay for, then you are screwed.
If it costs less to build than customers are willing to pay for, then you have a winner.Oracle might have their XE product, but what they really want is customers.
It is better to have customers paying for something than have a product that is simply not selling, even if it is a small amount.
Don't underestimate the number of companies willing to pony up for a service contract, just so they can reassure their investors/shareholders.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30435240</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434936</id>
	<title>Re:Monty and Florian want MySQL to be BSD licensed</title>
	<author>mcoon</author>
	<datestamp>1260782160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, you could always switch to PostgreSQL. Once the switch is made, you never have to look back.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , you could always switch to PostgreSQL .
Once the switch is made , you never have to look back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, you could always switch to PostgreSQL.
Once the switch is made, you never have to look back.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30435304</id>
	<title>Re:Why bother with MySQL?</title>
	<author>gmuslera</author>
	<datestamp>1260784260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Good part of the power of a database(/programming language/operating system/etc) is the people behind it, the community, the ecosystem, the odds of finding someone that knows it already, and how widely deployed and tested is. And if over that it works, better yet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Good part of the power of a database ( /programming language/operating system/etc ) is the people behind it , the community , the ecosystem , the odds of finding someone that knows it already , and how widely deployed and tested is .
And if over that it works , better yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good part of the power of a database(/programming language/operating system/etc) is the people behind it, the community, the ecosystem, the odds of finding someone that knows it already, and how widely deployed and tested is.
And if over that it works, better yet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434554</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434800</id>
	<title>It's under the GPL</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260781440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whenever there's a question about the GPL or GPL-licensed software, the standard argument is "if you don't like the direction it's going, you can take the code and maintain it yourself". Why is MySQL any different? Is it because the owner is a corporation rather than an individual? Frankly, if you believe in the GPL it shouldn't matter who (or what) owns a particular piece of software.</p><p>If, on the other hand, you want to say "MySQL is different because it's used everywhere, so we need additional guarantees from the owner" - remember that the next time someone complains about some small SourceForge project and you're about to put forward that "if you don't like the direction the project is going..." strawman.</p><p>The GPL is supposedly all about freedom (and Freedom). That applies equally to the small developer and the giant corporation, whether you like it or not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whenever there 's a question about the GPL or GPL-licensed software , the standard argument is " if you do n't like the direction it 's going , you can take the code and maintain it yourself " .
Why is MySQL any different ?
Is it because the owner is a corporation rather than an individual ?
Frankly , if you believe in the GPL it should n't matter who ( or what ) owns a particular piece of software.If , on the other hand , you want to say " MySQL is different because it 's used everywhere , so we need additional guarantees from the owner " - remember that the next time someone complains about some small SourceForge project and you 're about to put forward that " if you do n't like the direction the project is going... " strawman.The GPL is supposedly all about freedom ( and Freedom ) .
That applies equally to the small developer and the giant corporation , whether you like it or not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whenever there's a question about the GPL or GPL-licensed software, the standard argument is "if you don't like the direction it's going, you can take the code and maintain it yourself".
Why is MySQL any different?
Is it because the owner is a corporation rather than an individual?
Frankly, if you believe in the GPL it shouldn't matter who (or what) owns a particular piece of software.If, on the other hand, you want to say "MySQL is different because it's used everywhere, so we need additional guarantees from the owner" - remember that the next time someone complains about some small SourceForge project and you're about to put forward that "if you don't like the direction the project is going..." strawman.The GPL is supposedly all about freedom (and Freedom).
That applies equally to the small developer and the giant corporation, whether you like it or not.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434658</id>
	<title>This isn't really about MySQL</title>
	<author>dikdik</author>
	<datestamp>1260823980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is all about the EU blocking Oracle's acquisition of Sun. They are trolling for testimonials about how the Sun acquisition would force people to buy Oracle DB, which is almost certainly would not:
<p>
<a href="http://www.moneycontrol.com/news/ibu\_index.php?storyid=832" title="moneycontrol.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.moneycontrol.com/news/ibu\_index.php?storyid=832</a> [moneycontrol.com]
</p><p>
Look at Berkeley DB (on which OpenLDAP uttely depends.) It's now "Oracle Berkeley DB". I don't see any monkey business with that arrangement (although the OpenLDAP people are probably working on ditching BDB just as due diligence.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is all about the EU blocking Oracle 's acquisition of Sun .
They are trolling for testimonials about how the Sun acquisition would force people to buy Oracle DB , which is almost certainly would not : http : //www.moneycontrol.com/news/ibu \ _index.php ? storyid = 832 [ moneycontrol.com ] Look at Berkeley DB ( on which OpenLDAP uttely depends .
) It 's now " Oracle Berkeley DB " .
I do n't see any monkey business with that arrangement ( although the OpenLDAP people are probably working on ditching BDB just as due diligence .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is all about the EU blocking Oracle's acquisition of Sun.
They are trolling for testimonials about how the Sun acquisition would force people to buy Oracle DB, which is almost certainly would not:

http://www.moneycontrol.com/news/ibu\_index.php?storyid=832 [moneycontrol.com]

Look at Berkeley DB (on which OpenLDAP uttely depends.
) It's now "Oracle Berkeley DB".
I don't see any monkey business with that arrangement (although the OpenLDAP people are probably working on ditching BDB just as due diligence.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30440718</id>
	<title>Re:Monty's ethical problem</title>
	<author>mahadiga</author>
	<datestamp>1260815280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Did Monty has any exclusive clauses with Sun saying that he can control the future <i>destination</i> of MySQL?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did Monty has any exclusive clauses with Sun saying that he can control the future destination of MySQL ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did Monty has any exclusive clauses with Sun saying that he can control the future destination of MySQL?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30435248</id>
	<title>Re:Under the GPL, whats the problem?</title>
	<author>Bruce Perens</author>
	<datestamp>1260783960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It sounds as if you could be a little confused about this. MySQL owned the complete copyright to the MySQL server. So, they could commercially license it as well as provide it under the GPL. Most GPL projects do not have this capability, because no one entity owns the entire copyright and the aggregate of all copyright holders do not work together to dual-license.</p><p>So, Sun bought the rights to commercially license MySQL, and to enforce the GPL on those who do not have commercial licenses. Now Oracle will have that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It sounds as if you could be a little confused about this .
MySQL owned the complete copyright to the MySQL server .
So , they could commercially license it as well as provide it under the GPL .
Most GPL projects do not have this capability , because no one entity owns the entire copyright and the aggregate of all copyright holders do not work together to dual-license.So , Sun bought the rights to commercially license MySQL , and to enforce the GPL on those who do not have commercial licenses .
Now Oracle will have that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It sounds as if you could be a little confused about this.
MySQL owned the complete copyright to the MySQL server.
So, they could commercially license it as well as provide it under the GPL.
Most GPL projects do not have this capability, because no one entity owns the entire copyright and the aggregate of all copyright holders do not work together to dual-license.So, Sun bought the rights to commercially license MySQL, and to enforce the GPL on those who do not have commercial licenses.
Now Oracle will have that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30435156</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30441902</id>
	<title>Re:Makes sense</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260873300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, but by the same argument, it also means that their incentive is to hold back on developing new features for MySQL that might stop people wanting to take the upgrade to Oracle.</p><p>In this respect, it's more like Microsoft providing SQL Server and Access -- Access was a truly awful database product, but what incentive did MS have to improve it? By their thinking, anyone who wanted a proper DB should have been using SQL Server.</p><p>So yes, I'm sure Oracle have big plans for MySQL, but I doubt they extend to developing too many new features. They'll consolidate what it has, tighten it up, bugfix, maybe improve things a bit, but the real contribution they're looking at offering is a support network rather than code improvements. That's great, but I do worry about the long term future for it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , but by the same argument , it also means that their incentive is to hold back on developing new features for MySQL that might stop people wanting to take the upgrade to Oracle.In this respect , it 's more like Microsoft providing SQL Server and Access -- Access was a truly awful database product , but what incentive did MS have to improve it ?
By their thinking , anyone who wanted a proper DB should have been using SQL Server.So yes , I 'm sure Oracle have big plans for MySQL , but I doubt they extend to developing too many new features .
They 'll consolidate what it has , tighten it up , bugfix , maybe improve things a bit , but the real contribution they 're looking at offering is a support network rather than code improvements .
That 's great , but I do worry about the long term future for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, but by the same argument, it also means that their incentive is to hold back on developing new features for MySQL that might stop people wanting to take the upgrade to Oracle.In this respect, it's more like Microsoft providing SQL Server and Access -- Access was a truly awful database product, but what incentive did MS have to improve it?
By their thinking, anyone who wanted a proper DB should have been using SQL Server.So yes, I'm sure Oracle have big plans for MySQL, but I doubt they extend to developing too many new features.
They'll consolidate what it has, tighten it up, bugfix, maybe improve things a bit, but the real contribution they're looking at offering is a support network rather than code improvements.
That's great, but I do worry about the long term future for it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434442</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30440060</id>
	<title>OurSQL</title>
	<author>stonewolf</author>
	<datestamp>1260809400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Time for a fork my friends. The time of MySQL has passed, the time for OurSQL has come.</p><p>I'm so clever... go to OurSQL.org, like I did, and guess what? Someone registered it back in '07 and is promising to give to the folks who fork MySQL. It wasn't me. Wish it were, I checked out the big three URLs just in case I was lucky enough be able to register it before I posted, found out I'm not so clever.</p><p>OurSQL.com is, of course, for sale.<br>OurSQL.net has a page that says... "hello there, please work."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Time for a fork my friends .
The time of MySQL has passed , the time for OurSQL has come.I 'm so clever... go to OurSQL.org , like I did , and guess what ?
Someone registered it back in '07 and is promising to give to the folks who fork MySQL .
It was n't me .
Wish it were , I checked out the big three URLs just in case I was lucky enough be able to register it before I posted , found out I 'm not so clever.OurSQL.com is , of course , for sale.OurSQL.net has a page that says... " hello there , please work .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Time for a fork my friends.
The time of MySQL has passed, the time for OurSQL has come.I'm so clever... go to OurSQL.org, like I did, and guess what?
Someone registered it back in '07 and is promising to give to the folks who fork MySQL.
It wasn't me.
Wish it were, I checked out the big three URLs just in case I was lucky enough be able to register it before I posted, found out I'm not so clever.OurSQL.com is, of course, for sale.OurSQL.net has a page that says... "hello there, please work.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434492</id>
	<title>Monty's ethical problem</title>
	<author>Bruce Perens</author>
	<datestamp>1260823020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Monty has been paid somewhere north of 100 Million dollars in the MySQL purchase by Sun. Now, having been paid, Monty wants MySQL back for his business - without returning the money. And Monty has no problem with FUD-ing the GPL to get what he wants, even if the GPL provided half of the business method (dual-licensing) that made him rich.</p><p>
Now, having been paid, I would think that an ethical position for Monty would be to allow MySQL's new owners to have what they paid for.</p><p>
We can all use MySQL with no problem whatsoever under the GPL. With proprietary clients and Free clients, with no problem. An application across the network interface from the server, speaking a published and standard protocol, is not a derivative work. The GPL wouldn't apply to such an application. There is a GPL-ed client library that has to be replaced with a non-GPL version, but that version has existed for a decade.
</p><p>
Monty is free to do his business with the GPL version if he wishes. But it seems he wants to have his cake and eat it.
</p><p> <i>Bruce</i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Monty has been paid somewhere north of 100 Million dollars in the MySQL purchase by Sun .
Now , having been paid , Monty wants MySQL back for his business - without returning the money .
And Monty has no problem with FUD-ing the GPL to get what he wants , even if the GPL provided half of the business method ( dual-licensing ) that made him rich .
Now , having been paid , I would think that an ethical position for Monty would be to allow MySQL 's new owners to have what they paid for .
We can all use MySQL with no problem whatsoever under the GPL .
With proprietary clients and Free clients , with no problem .
An application across the network interface from the server , speaking a published and standard protocol , is not a derivative work .
The GPL would n't apply to such an application .
There is a GPL-ed client library that has to be replaced with a non-GPL version , but that version has existed for a decade .
Monty is free to do his business with the GPL version if he wishes .
But it seems he wants to have his cake and eat it .
Bruce</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Monty has been paid somewhere north of 100 Million dollars in the MySQL purchase by Sun.
Now, having been paid, Monty wants MySQL back for his business - without returning the money.
And Monty has no problem with FUD-ing the GPL to get what he wants, even if the GPL provided half of the business method (dual-licensing) that made him rich.
Now, having been paid, I would think that an ethical position for Monty would be to allow MySQL's new owners to have what they paid for.
We can all use MySQL with no problem whatsoever under the GPL.
With proprietary clients and Free clients, with no problem.
An application across the network interface from the server, speaking a published and standard protocol, is not a derivative work.
The GPL wouldn't apply to such an application.
There is a GPL-ed client library that has to be replaced with a non-GPL version, but that version has existed for a decade.
Monty is free to do his business with the GPL version if he wishes.
But it seems he wants to have his cake and eat it.
Bruce</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30435540</id>
	<title>Re:oracle would be stupid not to say those things</title>
	<author>KarmaMB84</author>
	<datestamp>1260785640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>MySQL Enterprise licensees will probably jump ship to another database ASAP if they kill development/support.</htmltext>
<tokenext>MySQL Enterprise licensees will probably jump ship to another database ASAP if they kill development/support .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MySQL Enterprise licensees will probably jump ship to another database ASAP if they kill development/support.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30435020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434782</id>
	<title>Re:Why Not Reserve Judgment?</title>
	<author>F452</author>
	<datestamp>1260781380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I posted a link below to GPL true believer Eben Moglen's opinion about this takeover -- it may surprise you.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I posted a link below to GPL true believer Eben Moglen 's opinion about this takeover -- it may surprise you .
: - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I posted a link below to GPL true believer Eben Moglen's opinion about this takeover -- it may surprise you.
:-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434614</id>
	<title>well</title>
	<author>larry bagina</author>
	<datestamp>1260823740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>larry ellison may be an asshole, but at least he's not a mighty wide anus.  Maybe monty should offer to buy back mysql if it's that important to him?</htmltext>
<tokenext>larry ellison may be an asshole , but at least he 's not a mighty wide anus .
Maybe monty should offer to buy back mysql if it 's that important to him ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>larry ellison may be an asshole, but at least he's not a mighty wide anus.
Maybe monty should offer to buy back mysql if it's that important to him?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30435734</id>
	<title>Fork?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260786660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fork the forking forkers!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fork the forking forkers !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fork the forking forkers!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434486</id>
	<title>Not Enough</title>
	<author>Archangel Michael</author>
	<datestamp>1260822960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> The pledges are still not enough for some"</p></div></blockquote><p>Yeah, because some people hate anything bigger than the mom/pop store down the street.</p><p>I would love to see some sort of Social Contract for big companies, where they sign the dotted line to assure us of their "word".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The pledges are still not enough for some " Yeah , because some people hate anything bigger than the mom/pop store down the street.I would love to see some sort of Social Contract for big companies , where they sign the dotted line to assure us of their " word " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> The pledges are still not enough for some"Yeah, because some people hate anything bigger than the mom/pop store down the street.I would love to see some sort of Social Contract for big companies, where they sign the dotted line to assure us of their "word".
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30449502</id>
	<title>Re:Fork?</title>
	<author>kris</author>
	<datestamp>1260870480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>MySQL has already been forked. The project is called Drizzle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>MySQL has already been forked .
The project is called Drizzle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MySQL has already been forked.
The project is called Drizzle.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30435246</id>
	<title>Re:Fork?</title>
	<author>FlyingGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1260783960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You may or may not trust Larry and Co. and that of course is your right.</p><p>But I gotta say, I don't see ANYTHING in MySQL worth folding into the Oracle Database.</p><p>When it comes to pure DB power I have yet to see <b>anything</b> that even comes close to Oracle.</p><p>Yes Oracle is not cheap but let me give you a little story on that.</p><p> I hade a particularly nasty problem a couple of years back and the client I was working was fully licensed and thus had support, so I picked up the phone and opened an incident and was on with an engineer within about 5 minutes.</p><p>As we were working the problem she let me know it was time for her to go home and that she would be taking a few moments to brief the next engineer before handing me off.  Now this was around 7pm Pacific time and she was in Colorado.  She handed me off to another tech in Hawaii or someplace like that and we continued working the problem.  As we worked the problem I was curious and asked how long they would stay on the line?  This tech said, well as long as you are willing to be on site we will just keep transferring you as the time zones and shifts change around the world.</p><p>When you have a mission critical DB that is the kind of support you want, you don't want to post to a forum, you don't want to send an e-mail, you want someone on the phone, now, that knows what the hell they are doing.  So yes Oracle costs a few bucks, but when you really look at the price you pay -v- the service you get and the incredibly  stable and incredibly powerful DB you get, it is really not that expensive in the grand scheme of things.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You may or may not trust Larry and Co. and that of course is your right.But I got ta say , I do n't see ANYTHING in MySQL worth folding into the Oracle Database.When it comes to pure DB power I have yet to see anything that even comes close to Oracle.Yes Oracle is not cheap but let me give you a little story on that .
I hade a particularly nasty problem a couple of years back and the client I was working was fully licensed and thus had support , so I picked up the phone and opened an incident and was on with an engineer within about 5 minutes.As we were working the problem she let me know it was time for her to go home and that she would be taking a few moments to brief the next engineer before handing me off .
Now this was around 7pm Pacific time and she was in Colorado .
She handed me off to another tech in Hawaii or someplace like that and we continued working the problem .
As we worked the problem I was curious and asked how long they would stay on the line ?
This tech said , well as long as you are willing to be on site we will just keep transferring you as the time zones and shifts change around the world.When you have a mission critical DB that is the kind of support you want , you do n't want to post to a forum , you do n't want to send an e-mail , you want someone on the phone , now , that knows what the hell they are doing .
So yes Oracle costs a few bucks , but when you really look at the price you pay -v- the service you get and the incredibly stable and incredibly powerful DB you get , it is really not that expensive in the grand scheme of things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You may or may not trust Larry and Co. and that of course is your right.But I gotta say, I don't see ANYTHING in MySQL worth folding into the Oracle Database.When it comes to pure DB power I have yet to see anything that even comes close to Oracle.Yes Oracle is not cheap but let me give you a little story on that.
I hade a particularly nasty problem a couple of years back and the client I was working was fully licensed and thus had support, so I picked up the phone and opened an incident and was on with an engineer within about 5 minutes.As we were working the problem she let me know it was time for her to go home and that she would be taking a few moments to brief the next engineer before handing me off.
Now this was around 7pm Pacific time and she was in Colorado.
She handed me off to another tech in Hawaii or someplace like that and we continued working the problem.
As we worked the problem I was curious and asked how long they would stay on the line?
This tech said, well as long as you are willing to be on site we will just keep transferring you as the time zones and shifts change around the world.When you have a mission critical DB that is the kind of support you want, you don't want to post to a forum, you don't want to send an e-mail, you want someone on the phone, now, that knows what the hell they are doing.
So yes Oracle costs a few bucks, but when you really look at the price you pay -v- the service you get and the incredibly  stable and incredibly powerful DB you get, it is really not that expensive in the grand scheme of things.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434574</id>
	<title>Re:Makes sense</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260823560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Along the same line as the high-end/low-end thing Oracle does have a 'low-end' Oracle database (Oracle XE) but it's never really gotten any kind of following or use that I have seen.  So I could definitely understand their interest in providing an entry-level system with their name attached.</p><p>I've not understood the complaints about sharing the market space.  Anyone running full-blown Oracle database systems will be well and truly beyond MySQL.  Aside from that, try and get some PHB to understand that MySQL is in any way comparable to Oracle.</p><p>On the plus side- if Oracle can actually provide an easy to use path to migrate from MySQL to Oracle or to provide some kind of abstraction layer that would let you use MySQL-backed applications with Oracle I would cheer them to no end.</p><p>And as for the founder's (and the founder's buddy referenced in the article) concerns about the future of the product then he shouldn't have sold the damn thing.  So sorry, you sold your rights to it.  Fork it and start over if you really care that much.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Along the same line as the high-end/low-end thing Oracle does have a 'low-end ' Oracle database ( Oracle XE ) but it 's never really gotten any kind of following or use that I have seen .
So I could definitely understand their interest in providing an entry-level system with their name attached.I 've not understood the complaints about sharing the market space .
Anyone running full-blown Oracle database systems will be well and truly beyond MySQL .
Aside from that , try and get some PHB to understand that MySQL is in any way comparable to Oracle.On the plus side- if Oracle can actually provide an easy to use path to migrate from MySQL to Oracle or to provide some kind of abstraction layer that would let you use MySQL-backed applications with Oracle I would cheer them to no end.And as for the founder 's ( and the founder 's buddy referenced in the article ) concerns about the future of the product then he should n't have sold the damn thing .
So sorry , you sold your rights to it .
Fork it and start over if you really care that much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Along the same line as the high-end/low-end thing Oracle does have a 'low-end' Oracle database (Oracle XE) but it's never really gotten any kind of following or use that I have seen.
So I could definitely understand their interest in providing an entry-level system with their name attached.I've not understood the complaints about sharing the market space.
Anyone running full-blown Oracle database systems will be well and truly beyond MySQL.
Aside from that, try and get some PHB to understand that MySQL is in any way comparable to Oracle.On the plus side- if Oracle can actually provide an easy to use path to migrate from MySQL to Oracle or to provide some kind of abstraction layer that would let you use MySQL-backed applications with Oracle I would cheer them to no end.And as for the founder's (and the founder's buddy referenced in the article) concerns about the future of the product then he shouldn't have sold the damn thing.
So sorry, you sold your rights to it.
Fork it and start over if you really care that much.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434442</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434700</id>
	<title>Eben Moglen's Blog Post</title>
	<author>F452</author>
	<datestamp>1260824220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The SFLC's Eben Moglen is okay with Oracle taking on MySQL:</p><p><a href="http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/blog/cases/oracle-sun/ec-hearing-and-after.html?seemore=y" title="columbia.edu">http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/blog/cases/oracle-sun/ec-hearing-and-after.html?seemore=y</a> [columbia.edu]</p><p>Among other interesting analysis:</p><p>"In fact, I think they're wrong. I don't think the GPL is a bad economic fit for MySQL. I believe that Oracle sees clearly the nature of its business interests. It knows that MySQL is much, much more valuable to it alive than dead. In fact, Oracle has almost as much reason to improve MySQL as it has to improve its flagship product. For a small firm, like MySQL AB, dual-licensing revenue was the only efficient revenue source with which to develop the product. But for Oracle, service revenue is much more significant than dual-licensing royalties. As all parties who have spoken about the merger agree, regardless of which side they are on, enterprises that use Oracle are very likely to use MySQL also, because MySQL is the world leader in number of installs. Which means that companies that pay Oracle to service Oracle are very likely to pay Oracle to service MySQL as well, if Oracle is not only servicing MySQL but acting as primary funder and participant in a flourishing MySQL ecology. Even if Oracle were only willing to invest in MySQL the extent of its ability to increase the MySQL service business, Oracle would be the best thing that ever ichappened to MySQL. In fact, Oracle has an immense incentive to invest far more in MySQL than the extent of its increased winnings in the MySQL service market. MySQL driven technologically and economically by Oracle will be a price-zero full-GPL missile aimed at Microsoft SQL Server. "</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The SFLC 's Eben Moglen is okay with Oracle taking on MySQL : http : //emoglen.law.columbia.edu/blog/cases/oracle-sun/ec-hearing-and-after.html ? seemore = y [ columbia.edu ] Among other interesting analysis : " In fact , I think they 're wrong .
I do n't think the GPL is a bad economic fit for MySQL .
I believe that Oracle sees clearly the nature of its business interests .
It knows that MySQL is much , much more valuable to it alive than dead .
In fact , Oracle has almost as much reason to improve MySQL as it has to improve its flagship product .
For a small firm , like MySQL AB , dual-licensing revenue was the only efficient revenue source with which to develop the product .
But for Oracle , service revenue is much more significant than dual-licensing royalties .
As all parties who have spoken about the merger agree , regardless of which side they are on , enterprises that use Oracle are very likely to use MySQL also , because MySQL is the world leader in number of installs .
Which means that companies that pay Oracle to service Oracle are very likely to pay Oracle to service MySQL as well , if Oracle is not only servicing MySQL but acting as primary funder and participant in a flourishing MySQL ecology .
Even if Oracle were only willing to invest in MySQL the extent of its ability to increase the MySQL service business , Oracle would be the best thing that ever ichappened to MySQL .
In fact , Oracle has an immense incentive to invest far more in MySQL than the extent of its increased winnings in the MySQL service market .
MySQL driven technologically and economically by Oracle will be a price-zero full-GPL missile aimed at Microsoft SQL Server .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The SFLC's Eben Moglen is okay with Oracle taking on MySQL:http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/blog/cases/oracle-sun/ec-hearing-and-after.html?seemore=y [columbia.edu]Among other interesting analysis:"In fact, I think they're wrong.
I don't think the GPL is a bad economic fit for MySQL.
I believe that Oracle sees clearly the nature of its business interests.
It knows that MySQL is much, much more valuable to it alive than dead.
In fact, Oracle has almost as much reason to improve MySQL as it has to improve its flagship product.
For a small firm, like MySQL AB, dual-licensing revenue was the only efficient revenue source with which to develop the product.
But for Oracle, service revenue is much more significant than dual-licensing royalties.
As all parties who have spoken about the merger agree, regardless of which side they are on, enterprises that use Oracle are very likely to use MySQL also, because MySQL is the world leader in number of installs.
Which means that companies that pay Oracle to service Oracle are very likely to pay Oracle to service MySQL as well, if Oracle is not only servicing MySQL but acting as primary funder and participant in a flourishing MySQL ecology.
Even if Oracle were only willing to invest in MySQL the extent of its ability to increase the MySQL service business, Oracle would be the best thing that ever ichappened to MySQL.
In fact, Oracle has an immense incentive to invest far more in MySQL than the extent of its increased winnings in the MySQL service market.
MySQL driven technologically and economically by Oracle will be a price-zero full-GPL missile aimed at Microsoft SQL Server.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30441532</id>
	<title>Re:Makes sense</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260868860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Expensive cars cost more to build.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.</p></div><p>Not nearly as much as you'd think.  The reason manufacturers have "premium" brands is because they make buckets of money on the perceived value.  There is so much fixed cost in manufacturing that making an "expensive" car costs relatively little extra compared to a "cheap" car.<br>
The trick is getting people to believe the expensive car is worth it, when it almost always isn't.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Expensive cars cost more to build .
.Not nearly as much as you 'd think .
The reason manufacturers have " premium " brands is because they make buckets of money on the perceived value .
There is so much fixed cost in manufacturing that making an " expensive " car costs relatively little extra compared to a " cheap " car .
The trick is getting people to believe the expensive car is worth it , when it almost always is n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Expensive cars cost more to build.
.Not nearly as much as you'd think.
The reason manufacturers have "premium" brands is because they make buckets of money on the perceived value.
There is so much fixed cost in manufacturing that making an "expensive" car costs relatively little extra compared to a "cheap" car.
The trick is getting people to believe the expensive car is worth it, when it almost always isn't.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30435240</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434846</id>
	<title>Re:Makes sense</title>
	<author>headLITE</author>
	<datestamp>1260781740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem why XE hasn't gained any measurable following is its CPU and DB size restrictions. Effectively you are allowed to use Oracle XE for applications where MySQL, or probably flat files, are sufficient and/or more efficient.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem why XE has n't gained any measurable following is its CPU and DB size restrictions .
Effectively you are allowed to use Oracle XE for applications where MySQL , or probably flat files , are sufficient and/or more efficient .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem why XE hasn't gained any measurable following is its CPU and DB size restrictions.
Effectively you are allowed to use Oracle XE for applications where MySQL, or probably flat files, are sufficient and/or more efficient.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30435212</id>
	<title>Re:Monty's ethical problem</title>
	<author>cyphercell</author>
	<datestamp>1260783720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree, but it's not just an ethical position, but a pragmatic one also, if he expects to sell much software in the future or have any influence on MySQL's current direction.</p><p>It seems he is refusing to take responsibility for his own actions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree , but it 's not just an ethical position , but a pragmatic one also , if he expects to sell much software in the future or have any influence on MySQL 's current direction.It seems he is refusing to take responsibility for his own actions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree, but it's not just an ethical position, but a pragmatic one also, if he expects to sell much software in the future or have any influence on MySQL's current direction.It seems he is refusing to take responsibility for his own actions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434470</id>
	<title>Monty and Florian want MySQL to be BSD licensed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260822900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The original founders of MySQL are using the merger talks in the EU along with SAP and Microsoft to harm competition. The founders goal is to have the code licensed under the BSD so they can take the code they develop private. Monty and Florian have NEVER been friends of the GPL. Don't believe a word they say.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The original founders of MySQL are using the merger talks in the EU along with SAP and Microsoft to harm competition .
The founders goal is to have the code licensed under the BSD so they can take the code they develop private .
Monty and Florian have NEVER been friends of the GPL .
Do n't believe a word they say .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The original founders of MySQL are using the merger talks in the EU along with SAP and Microsoft to harm competition.
The founders goal is to have the code licensed under the BSD so they can take the code they develop private.
Monty and Florian have NEVER been friends of the GPL.
Don't believe a word they say.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30435310</id>
	<title>Re:oracle would be stupid not to say those things</title>
	<author>jeffstar</author>
	<datestamp>1260784320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Was Mysql even a factor in them purcashing sun?</p><p>if sun paid 1 billion for mysql and oracle paid 7 billion for sun, it is 1/7th of the deal right?</p><p>If 1/7th of the deal is holding up the rest of it, they'll do whatever they can to get the other 6/7ths through, including dumping money into an open source project.</p><p>They didn't really buy Sun for Mysql right, solaris, java, the sun servers and processors have got to have had way more appeal for Oracle, which already has the best database, than an already GPL'd project.</p><p>If they wanted to start an oracle version of mysql and lavish money upon it, they could have done that without buying sun!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Was Mysql even a factor in them purcashing sun ? if sun paid 1 billion for mysql and oracle paid 7 billion for sun , it is 1/7th of the deal right ? If 1/7th of the deal is holding up the rest of it , they 'll do whatever they can to get the other 6/7ths through , including dumping money into an open source project.They did n't really buy Sun for Mysql right , solaris , java , the sun servers and processors have got to have had way more appeal for Oracle , which already has the best database , than an already GPL 'd project.If they wanted to start an oracle version of mysql and lavish money upon it , they could have done that without buying sun !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Was Mysql even a factor in them purcashing sun?if sun paid 1 billion for mysql and oracle paid 7 billion for sun, it is 1/7th of the deal right?If 1/7th of the deal is holding up the rest of it, they'll do whatever they can to get the other 6/7ths through, including dumping money into an open source project.They didn't really buy Sun for Mysql right, solaris, java, the sun servers and processors have got to have had way more appeal for Oracle, which already has the best database, than an already GPL'd project.If they wanted to start an oracle version of mysql and lavish money upon it, they could have done that without buying sun!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30440740</id>
	<title>Re:Why Not Reserve Judgment?</title>
	<author>mahadiga</author>
	<datestamp>1260815460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does GPL control the <i>use</i> or <i>sale</i> of software?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does GPL control the use or sale of software ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does GPL control the use or sale of software?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30435050</id>
	<title>Re:Makes sense</title>
	<author>rutledjw</author>
	<datestamp>1260782820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And as for the founder's (and the founder's buddy referenced in the article) concerns about the future of the product then he shouldn't have sold the damn thing.  So sorry, you sold your rights to it.  Fork it and start over if you really care that much.</p></div><p>
This is an interesting point.  It IS open source and can be forked.  How much work in improving the DB occurs within Sun (and soon Oracle) presently?  Aside from ignoring new features which are introduced to the open source version, how much damage will ignoring the code base really cause?</p><p>

I would assume (possibly dangerous) that most MySQL users are savvy enough to use a different flavor of the MySQL code base if the one they're currently on gets stale.  I don't see Oracle introducing iterative improvements for MySQL and certainly little or nothing which will be under an open license.  I CAN see them layering other features on top which don't become a part of the code base.  Not sure why they would pursue such a path unless they want to poke at SQL Server some...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And as for the founder 's ( and the founder 's buddy referenced in the article ) concerns about the future of the product then he should n't have sold the damn thing .
So sorry , you sold your rights to it .
Fork it and start over if you really care that much .
This is an interesting point .
It IS open source and can be forked .
How much work in improving the DB occurs within Sun ( and soon Oracle ) presently ?
Aside from ignoring new features which are introduced to the open source version , how much damage will ignoring the code base really cause ?
I would assume ( possibly dangerous ) that most MySQL users are savvy enough to use a different flavor of the MySQL code base if the one they 're currently on gets stale .
I do n't see Oracle introducing iterative improvements for MySQL and certainly little or nothing which will be under an open license .
I CAN see them layering other features on top which do n't become a part of the code base .
Not sure why they would pursue such a path unless they want to poke at SQL Server some.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And as for the founder's (and the founder's buddy referenced in the article) concerns about the future of the product then he shouldn't have sold the damn thing.
So sorry, you sold your rights to it.
Fork it and start over if you really care that much.
This is an interesting point.
It IS open source and can be forked.
How much work in improving the DB occurs within Sun (and soon Oracle) presently?
Aside from ignoring new features which are introduced to the open source version, how much damage will ignoring the code base really cause?
I would assume (possibly dangerous) that most MySQL users are savvy enough to use a different flavor of the MySQL code base if the one they're currently on gets stale.
I don't see Oracle introducing iterative improvements for MySQL and certainly little or nothing which will be under an open license.
I CAN see them layering other features on top which don't become a part of the code base.
Not sure why they would pursue such a path unless they want to poke at SQL Server some...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434574</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434714</id>
	<title>Re:Why bother with MySQL?</title>
	<author>Bruce Perens</author>
	<datestamp>1260824340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because it works with so much software. Next to that, ANSI 92 isn't important. It makes sense that Open Source could trump an Open Standard.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because it works with so much software .
Next to that , ANSI 92 is n't important .
It makes sense that Open Source could trump an Open Standard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because it works with so much software.
Next to that, ANSI 92 isn't important.
It makes sense that Open Source could trump an Open Standard.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434554</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434596</id>
	<title>Re:Fork?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260823680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anyone can fork at anytime.  The problem for Monty is that his fork would have to stay in the GPL.  He isn't concerned that Oracle will stop maintaining MySQL or stop releasing it under the GPL.  It's not Oracle that wants to close the source on MySQL, that's what Monty wants to do for himself.  The problem is, he already sold the copyright and now only has access to the GPLed version.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone can fork at anytime .
The problem for Monty is that his fork would have to stay in the GPL .
He is n't concerned that Oracle will stop maintaining MySQL or stop releasing it under the GPL .
It 's not Oracle that wants to close the source on MySQL , that 's what Monty wants to do for himself .
The problem is , he already sold the copyright and now only has access to the GPLed version .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone can fork at anytime.
The problem for Monty is that his fork would have to stay in the GPL.
He isn't concerned that Oracle will stop maintaining MySQL or stop releasing it under the GPL.
It's not Oracle that wants to close the source on MySQL, that's what Monty wants to do for himself.
The problem is, he already sold the copyright and now only has access to the GPLed version.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434854</id>
	<title>Re:Monty and Florian want MySQL to be BSD licensed</title>
	<author>larry bagina</author>
	<datestamp>1260781800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They used GPL not because they like FREE software but because they could throw in some FUD to sell commercial licenses (with allegedly more features).</htmltext>
<tokenext>They used GPL not because they like FREE software but because they could throw in some FUD to sell commercial licenses ( with allegedly more features ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They used GPL not because they like FREE software but because they could throw in some FUD to sell commercial licenses (with allegedly more features).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434630</id>
	<title>Why Not Reserve Judgment?</title>
	<author>CodeBuster</author>
	<datestamp>1260823860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>It appears that Oracle has now made some public promises with regard to MySQL so couldn't we return the favor and give them some time and see how it goes before allowing the GPL "true believers" tar and feather them? If any company that touches a GPL product gets burnt, no matter what their intentions, then doesn't that ultimately hurt rather than help the cause of free software?</htmltext>
<tokenext>It appears that Oracle has now made some public promises with regard to MySQL so could n't we return the favor and give them some time and see how it goes before allowing the GPL " true believers " tar and feather them ?
If any company that touches a GPL product gets burnt , no matter what their intentions , then does n't that ultimately hurt rather than help the cause of free software ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It appears that Oracle has now made some public promises with regard to MySQL so couldn't we return the favor and give them some time and see how it goes before allowing the GPL "true believers" tar and feather them?
If any company that touches a GPL product gets burnt, no matter what their intentions, then doesn't that ultimately hurt rather than help the cause of free software?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434620</id>
	<title>Re:Makes sense</title>
	<author>Penguinisto</author>
	<datestamp>1260823800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not really seeing it... I mean, they already have (fairly) low-end versions of Oracle already out there (starting with "Express"), which are basically stripped versions of the high-end products.</p><p>What would they gain from replacing those with a product based on a fairly incompatible and radically different codebase? You're supposed to up-sell customers, which MySQL likely won't do very well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not really seeing it... I mean , they already have ( fairly ) low-end versions of Oracle already out there ( starting with " Express " ) , which are basically stripped versions of the high-end products.What would they gain from replacing those with a product based on a fairly incompatible and radically different codebase ?
You 're supposed to up-sell customers , which MySQL likely wo n't do very well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not really seeing it... I mean, they already have (fairly) low-end versions of Oracle already out there (starting with "Express"), which are basically stripped versions of the high-end products.What would they gain from replacing those with a product based on a fairly incompatible and radically different codebase?
You're supposed to up-sell customers, which MySQL likely won't do very well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434442</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30439842</id>
	<title>Where does that leave InnoDB?</title>
	<author>Ouija</author>
	<datestamp>1260807480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where does that leave InnoDB?  It's the only game in town for a tried-and-true constraint-enabled MySQL database.  I was to understand that Oracle bought that engine up years ago.  Were that single piece to go missing, MySQL would be set back to the stone age.  The lack of mention about that engine, and lots of talk about third party engines concerns me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where does that leave InnoDB ?
It 's the only game in town for a tried-and-true constraint-enabled MySQL database .
I was to understand that Oracle bought that engine up years ago .
Were that single piece to go missing , MySQL would be set back to the stone age .
The lack of mention about that engine , and lots of talk about third party engines concerns me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where does that leave InnoDB?
It's the only game in town for a tried-and-true constraint-enabled MySQL database.
I was to understand that Oracle bought that engine up years ago.
Were that single piece to go missing, MySQL would be set back to the stone age.
The lack of mention about that engine, and lots of talk about third party engines concerns me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434600</id>
	<title>Re:Fork?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260823680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about waiting to see what happens, then forking if needed?  There really is no reason to fork ahead of time, all it will accomplish is fragmenting the userbase and cause tension in the community.</p><p>Honestly I'm getting tired of all of this "OMG Oracle bought MySQL, the sky is falling!!!" nonsense.  If the sky does start to fall, then fork.  Otherwise just stop, it's getting annoying.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about waiting to see what happens , then forking if needed ?
There really is no reason to fork ahead of time , all it will accomplish is fragmenting the userbase and cause tension in the community.Honestly I 'm getting tired of all of this " OMG Oracle bought MySQL , the sky is falling ! ! !
" nonsense .
If the sky does start to fall , then fork .
Otherwise just stop , it 's getting annoying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about waiting to see what happens, then forking if needed?
There really is no reason to fork ahead of time, all it will accomplish is fragmenting the userbase and cause tension in the community.Honestly I'm getting tired of all of this "OMG Oracle bought MySQL, the sky is falling!!!
" nonsense.
If the sky does start to fall, then fork.
Otherwise just stop, it's getting annoying.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30435194</id>
	<title>Re:Why bother with MySQL?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260783540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Who gives a shit? Everyone uses MySQL.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who gives a shit ?
Everyone uses MySQL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who gives a shit?
Everyone uses MySQL.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434554</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30435148</id>
	<title>Re:Fork?</title>
	<author>jeffstar</author>
	<datestamp>1260783240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They pledge to spend upwards of 24 million a year on developing and improving mysql for the next three years.</p><p>What fork is going to be able to out pace the oracle version with all that money, which ought to mean developer hours, lavished upon it?</p><p>The press release says they will continue releasing GPL community editions in lockstep with enterprise editions.</p><p>Fork it when they stop pouring money and developer hours from the best database company out there into the project.</p><p>MySQL might get better under oracle, and if it doesn't all, pick and choose from the GPL codebase, right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They pledge to spend upwards of 24 million a year on developing and improving mysql for the next three years.What fork is going to be able to out pace the oracle version with all that money , which ought to mean developer hours , lavished upon it ? The press release says they will continue releasing GPL community editions in lockstep with enterprise editions.Fork it when they stop pouring money and developer hours from the best database company out there into the project.MySQL might get better under oracle , and if it does n't all , pick and choose from the GPL codebase , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They pledge to spend upwards of 24 million a year on developing and improving mysql for the next three years.What fork is going to be able to out pace the oracle version with all that money, which ought to mean developer hours, lavished upon it?The press release says they will continue releasing GPL community editions in lockstep with enterprise editions.Fork it when they stop pouring money and developer hours from the best database company out there into the project.MySQL might get better under oracle, and if it doesn't all, pick and choose from the GPL codebase, right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30439048</id>
	<title>Re:Monty and Florian want MySQL to be BSD licensed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260802320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Well, you could always switch to PostgreSQL.</p></div><p>Well, apparently the only use of MySQL at my work place is inside two embedded products that do not give you source code to their side of the app.<br>One of the products is made by a company that is now out of business.</p><p>So you are saying that you personally will be paying to upgrade that code for us?<br>And you will be taking the liability for violating the copyright on their own code (after reverse engineering it of course) to make the changes and give them back to me?<br>Will you be providing the product support then, since this most likely voids the warranty?</p><p>I'm guessing there won't be much issue with support or copyright violations on our other product, but the other one is more important to us, so you can start there.</p><p>You can just paypal me that five digit sum, and then we can move forward with your plan...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , you could always switch to PostgreSQL.Well , apparently the only use of MySQL at my work place is inside two embedded products that do not give you source code to their side of the app.One of the products is made by a company that is now out of business.So you are saying that you personally will be paying to upgrade that code for us ? And you will be taking the liability for violating the copyright on their own code ( after reverse engineering it of course ) to make the changes and give them back to me ? Will you be providing the product support then , since this most likely voids the warranty ? I 'm guessing there wo n't be much issue with support or copyright violations on our other product , but the other one is more important to us , so you can start there.You can just paypal me that five digit sum , and then we can move forward with your plan.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, you could always switch to PostgreSQL.Well, apparently the only use of MySQL at my work place is inside two embedded products that do not give you source code to their side of the app.One of the products is made by a company that is now out of business.So you are saying that you personally will be paying to upgrade that code for us?And you will be taking the liability for violating the copyright on their own code (after reverse engineering it of course) to make the changes and give them back to me?Will you be providing the product support then, since this most likely voids the warranty?I'm guessing there won't be much issue with support or copyright violations on our other product, but the other one is more important to us, so you can start there.You can just paypal me that five digit sum, and then we can move forward with your plan...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434936</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434764</id>
	<title>Re:Why Not Reserve Judgment?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260781320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think it's a touch more complicated.   Part of MySQL's allure is that it is actively developed,  there are different groups developing different technologies that can be plugged in to it for different reasons,  it gives you a lot of options.   If some of those other developers jump ship because they're worried about Oracle's integrity then that can have an immediate impact on MySQL's overall appearance of health.</p><p>Microsoft has made some pledges for<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net users and for projects like Mono and the community is by and large still highly skeptical.   Novell is hated and they do tons of opensource.  I see no reason at all while Oracle and Sun will be loved and embraced.   Regardless of what they do.  People will be skeptical for a long time.   If you're a small company, and you do MySQL technology,  that skepticism would scare the hell out of me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it 's a touch more complicated .
Part of MySQL 's allure is that it is actively developed , there are different groups developing different technologies that can be plugged in to it for different reasons , it gives you a lot of options .
If some of those other developers jump ship because they 're worried about Oracle 's integrity then that can have an immediate impact on MySQL 's overall appearance of health.Microsoft has made some pledges for .Net users and for projects like Mono and the community is by and large still highly skeptical .
Novell is hated and they do tons of opensource .
I see no reason at all while Oracle and Sun will be loved and embraced .
Regardless of what they do .
People will be skeptical for a long time .
If you 're a small company , and you do MySQL technology , that skepticism would scare the hell out of me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it's a touch more complicated.
Part of MySQL's allure is that it is actively developed,  there are different groups developing different technologies that can be plugged in to it for different reasons,  it gives you a lot of options.
If some of those other developers jump ship because they're worried about Oracle's integrity then that can have an immediate impact on MySQL's overall appearance of health.Microsoft has made some pledges for .Net users and for projects like Mono and the community is by and large still highly skeptical.
Novell is hated and they do tons of opensource.
I see no reason at all while Oracle and Sun will be loved and embraced.
Regardless of what they do.
People will be skeptical for a long time.
If you're a small company, and you do MySQL technology,  that skepticism would scare the hell out of me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30437470</id>
	<title>Re:oracle would be stupid not to say those things</title>
	<author>Dan667</author>
	<datestamp>1260794820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>not under the MySQL name and if it forks a dozen ways or even drives a percentage of those people to oracle they would call it a win.</htmltext>
<tokenext>not under the MySQL name and if it forks a dozen ways or even drives a percentage of those people to oracle they would call it a win .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>not under the MySQL name and if it forks a dozen ways or even drives a percentage of those people to oracle they would call it a win.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30435020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434768</id>
	<title>And When Microsoft Purchased Bungie...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260781320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... we were all assured that Halo and Halo 2 would be simultaneous releases for Mac, PC, and Xbox.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... we were all assured that Halo and Halo 2 would be simultaneous releases for Mac , PC , and Xbox .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... we were all assured that Halo and Halo 2 would be simultaneous releases for Mac, PC, and Xbox.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30443706</id>
	<title>mySQL will be a gateway to Oracle.</title>
	<author>mr\_java66</author>
	<datestamp>1260890760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>My belief is that Oracle WILL maintain and upgrade mySQL.  They will turn it into a gateway product for full paid Oracle.  Its the only sensible logical business choice that jives with all the facts I know about this.  Oracle has been working hard to own mySQL for a long time now.  Given the investment, Given the presence of a product like paid-Oracle.  It makes sense to me that mySQL will eventually become a crippled version of Oracle.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My belief is that Oracle WILL maintain and upgrade mySQL .
They will turn it into a gateway product for full paid Oracle .
Its the only sensible logical business choice that jives with all the facts I know about this .
Oracle has been working hard to own mySQL for a long time now .
Given the investment , Given the presence of a product like paid-Oracle .
It makes sense to me that mySQL will eventually become a crippled version of Oracle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My belief is that Oracle WILL maintain and upgrade mySQL.
They will turn it into a gateway product for full paid Oracle.
Its the only sensible logical business choice that jives with all the facts I know about this.
Oracle has been working hard to own mySQL for a long time now.
Given the investment, Given the presence of a product like paid-Oracle.
It makes sense to me that mySQL will eventually become a crippled version of Oracle.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30442098</id>
	<title>Re:Makes sense</title>
	<author>Tim C</author>
	<datestamp>1260876300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Oracle could easily go after the low-end market by offering a crippled version of the Oracle database.</i></p><p><a href="http://www.oracle.com/technology/products/database/xe/index.html" title="oracle.com">They do</a> [oracle.com].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oracle could easily go after the low-end market by offering a crippled version of the Oracle database.They do [ oracle.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oracle could easily go after the low-end market by offering a crippled version of the Oracle database.They do [oracle.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30435240</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30435020</id>
	<title>Re:oracle would be stupid not to say those things</title>
	<author>oh\_my\_080980980</author>
	<datestamp>1260782640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>
Oracle cannot kill MySQL.  The code has been released via the GPL license.  This means anyone can fork MySQL and continue to develop it!
<br> <br>
Why are people so stupid!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oracle can not kill MySQL .
The code has been released via the GPL license .
This means anyone can fork MySQL and continue to develop it !
Why are people so stupid !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Oracle cannot kill MySQL.
The code has been released via the GPL license.
This means anyone can fork MySQL and continue to develop it!
Why are people so stupid!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30435156</id>
	<title>Under the GPL, whats the problem?</title>
	<author>bobs666</author>
	<datestamp>1260783300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Under the GPL you can sell your product.
as long as you transfer all the rights with it
under the GPL.

<br> <br>

If MySQL was not under the GPL at the time
shame on  Monty, if MySQL was under the GPL,
then the joke is on Sun for paying so much
for a copy of MySQL.  And Oracle has all the
rights of any other user of MySQL under the GPL.

<br> <br>

Given that Oracle says they intend to continue releasing MySQL under the GPL.  Grab a copy
While you can. And you can maintain your version.
I do not believe the GPL part of what ever product
Oracle produces can take away the rights of others
to the sources. and the GPL rights.

<br> <br>

Its this basic protection that the GPL was written
in the first place.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Under the GPL you can sell your product .
as long as you transfer all the rights with it under the GPL .
If MySQL was not under the GPL at the time shame on Monty , if MySQL was under the GPL , then the joke is on Sun for paying so much for a copy of MySQL .
And Oracle has all the rights of any other user of MySQL under the GPL .
Given that Oracle says they intend to continue releasing MySQL under the GPL .
Grab a copy While you can .
And you can maintain your version .
I do not believe the GPL part of what ever product Oracle produces can take away the rights of others to the sources .
and the GPL rights .
Its this basic protection that the GPL was written in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Under the GPL you can sell your product.
as long as you transfer all the rights with it
under the GPL.
If MySQL was not under the GPL at the time
shame on  Monty, if MySQL was under the GPL,
then the joke is on Sun for paying so much
for a copy of MySQL.
And Oracle has all the
rights of any other user of MySQL under the GPL.
Given that Oracle says they intend to continue releasing MySQL under the GPL.
Grab a copy
While you can.
And you can maintain your version.
I do not believe the GPL part of what ever product
Oracle produces can take away the rights of others
to the sources.
and the GPL rights.
Its this basic protection that the GPL was written
in the first place.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30440722</id>
	<title>Re:Makes sense</title>
	<author>darthvader100</author>
	<datestamp>1260815280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Oracle could easily go after the low-end market by offering a crippled version of the Oracle database</p></div><p>
It is called oracle XE, and includes an application framework(Apex - application express)<br>
The only real difference is that XE has a space, ram and processor limitation to whet your appetite for full blown(and priced) Oracle</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oracle could easily go after the low-end market by offering a crippled version of the Oracle database It is called oracle XE , and includes an application framework ( Apex - application express ) The only real difference is that XE has a space , ram and processor limitation to whet your appetite for full blown ( and priced ) Oracle</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oracle could easily go after the low-end market by offering a crippled version of the Oracle database
It is called oracle XE, and includes an application framework(Apex - application express)
The only real difference is that XE has a space, ram and processor limitation to whet your appetite for full blown(and priced) Oracle
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30435240</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30456282</id>
	<title>Re:Makes sense</title>
	<author>allancn</author>
	<datestamp>1259674620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.joyrelax.com/" title="joyrelax.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.joyrelax.com/</a> [joyrelax.com] head massager,massage roller</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.joyrelax.com/ [ joyrelax.com ] head massager,massage roller</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.joyrelax.com/ [joyrelax.com] head massager,massage roller</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30435050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30435240</id>
	<title>Re:Makes sense</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1260783900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's not just like Nissan/Infity. Expensive cars cost more to build. The marginal cost for software is damn near zero. Oracle could easily go after the low-end market by offering a crippled version of the Oracle database. The only reason they have to buy MySQL is to kill it as a competitor because it is cutting into their sales. They certainly aren't going to incorporate any MySQL technology into their bread-and-butter product line.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not just like Nissan/Infity .
Expensive cars cost more to build .
The marginal cost for software is damn near zero .
Oracle could easily go after the low-end market by offering a crippled version of the Oracle database .
The only reason they have to buy MySQL is to kill it as a competitor because it is cutting into their sales .
They certainly are n't going to incorporate any MySQL technology into their bread-and-butter product line .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not just like Nissan/Infity.
Expensive cars cost more to build.
The marginal cost for software is damn near zero.
Oracle could easily go after the low-end market by offering a crippled version of the Oracle database.
The only reason they have to buy MySQL is to kill it as a competitor because it is cutting into their sales.
They certainly aren't going to incorporate any MySQL technology into their bread-and-butter product line.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434442</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30436466</id>
	<title>Re:Makes sense</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1260789780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In addition to that, it's already what one of their major DB competitors, Microsoft is doing. SQL Express is fine for a lot of apps (admittedly not as many as MySQL), and Microsoft's free "give them a taste" product before you upgrade to SQL Server.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In addition to that , it 's already what one of their major DB competitors , Microsoft is doing .
SQL Express is fine for a lot of apps ( admittedly not as many as MySQL ) , and Microsoft 's free " give them a taste " product before you upgrade to SQL Server .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In addition to that, it's already what one of their major DB competitors, Microsoft is doing.
SQL Express is fine for a lot of apps (admittedly not as many as MySQL), and Microsoft's free "give them a taste" product before you upgrade to SQL Server.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434574</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434718</id>
	<title>oracle would be stupid not to say those things</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260824340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Of course oracle would say anything to get a hold of Mysql no matter how much they are trying to say it is a completely different solution.  Then in a year they can say something along the lines that "business conditions have changed" and kill it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course oracle would say anything to get a hold of Mysql no matter how much they are trying to say it is a completely different solution .
Then in a year they can say something along the lines that " business conditions have changed " and kill it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course oracle would say anything to get a hold of Mysql no matter how much they are trying to say it is a completely different solution.
Then in a year they can say something along the lines that "business conditions have changed" and kill it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434686</id>
	<title>MySQL is under Duel license - all contributions...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260824160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As MySQL is Dual License, remember Oracle now owns everything contributed to MySQL and can do whatever they want with the code, including incorporated the code into any proprietary Oracle product. They can even create a pure proprietary fork of the project, extend it, and say they leave the open source version out there, but you must have the proprietary version for support. Now they can extend the proprietary version...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As MySQL is Dual License , remember Oracle now owns everything contributed to MySQL and can do whatever they want with the code , including incorporated the code into any proprietary Oracle product .
They can even create a pure proprietary fork of the project , extend it , and say they leave the open source version out there , but you must have the proprietary version for support .
Now they can extend the proprietary version.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As MySQL is Dual License, remember Oracle now owns everything contributed to MySQL and can do whatever they want with the code, including incorporated the code into any proprietary Oracle product.
They can even create a pure proprietary fork of the project, extend it, and say they leave the open source version out there, but you must have the proprietary version for support.
Now they can extend the proprietary version...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30435230</id>
	<title>It can be usefule to run both Oracle and MySQL</title>
	<author>marhar</author>
	<datestamp>1260783780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Consider this scenario:</p><ul><li>your website shopping cart uses Oracle because it hooks into Oracle Financials.</li><li>your cluster of web servers get their data from replicated MySQL instances, because you can scale this up easily and with minimal cost.</li><li>You replicate your inventory numbers from Oracle to the MySQL instances.</li></ul><p>This is in fact a typical use case for Golden Gate, which has just been acquired by Oracle.</p><p><a href="http://www.goldengate.com/" title="goldengate.com">http://www.goldengate.com/</a> [goldengate.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Consider this scenario : your website shopping cart uses Oracle because it hooks into Oracle Financials.your cluster of web servers get their data from replicated MySQL instances , because you can scale this up easily and with minimal cost.You replicate your inventory numbers from Oracle to the MySQL instances.This is in fact a typical use case for Golden Gate , which has just been acquired by Oracle.http : //www.goldengate.com/ [ goldengate.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Consider this scenario:your website shopping cart uses Oracle because it hooks into Oracle Financials.your cluster of web servers get their data from replicated MySQL instances, because you can scale this up easily and with minimal cost.You replicate your inventory numbers from Oracle to the MySQL instances.This is in fact a typical use case for Golden Gate, which has just been acquired by Oracle.http://www.goldengate.com/ [goldengate.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30435474</id>
	<title>Re:MySQL is under Duel license - all contributions</title>
	<author>CrashandDie</author>
	<datestamp>1260785280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Duel license? When there is a conflict in git/svn/cvs during a merge, shoot the other developer.<br> <br>

I like it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Duel license ?
When there is a conflict in git/svn/cvs during a merge , shoot the other developer .
I like it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Duel license?
When there is a conflict in git/svn/cvs during a merge, shoot the other developer.
I like it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434442</id>
	<title>Makes sense</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260822840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you think about it makes sense for Oracle to continue developing MySQL, since this is like Nissan and Infiniti where the customer is provided with a high-end product and a low-end product. Oracle gets to offer service for both, recognising that not everyone wants to have to deal with the Oracle database product, either due to cost or needs. At the same time for customers growing past what MySQL is good at, Oracle can then offer them an upgrade path to their premium product.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you think about it makes sense for Oracle to continue developing MySQL , since this is like Nissan and Infiniti where the customer is provided with a high-end product and a low-end product .
Oracle gets to offer service for both , recognising that not everyone wants to have to deal with the Oracle database product , either due to cost or needs .
At the same time for customers growing past what MySQL is good at , Oracle can then offer them an upgrade path to their premium product .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you think about it makes sense for Oracle to continue developing MySQL, since this is like Nissan and Infiniti where the customer is provided with a high-end product and a low-end product.
Oracle gets to offer service for both, recognising that not everyone wants to have to deal with the Oracle database product, either due to cost or needs.
At the same time for customers growing past what MySQL is good at, Oracle can then offer them an upgrade path to their premium product.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30435614</id>
	<title>Re:Why bother with MySQL?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260785880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, it's popular and it's not quite standard so a lot of that software that supports it can't just drop-in another database like Postgresql or Firebird.</p><p>As someone that sort of turned away around 4.x when I got hurt by the lack of features,  what does "MySQL" even mean anymore?   You get some features with some backends and not with others,  there are multiple companies that have owned different parts with different sorts of licensing limitations or restrictions,  when you use it on a web host it's not uncommon for it to be an older version.   It just seems like this sort of nebulous brand that includes all things database and yet the common incarnations don't.  Some times you have to pay, some times it free, some times it's free unless you make money (is it still that way?)   Seems to me that if Monty wants to write a new database,  he's more than proven that he has the skillset to do it, the only thing of concern here is the brand "MySQL" and I simply cannot imagine why Oracle would even consider parting with that.</p><p>Seems there are a lot of community lessons to be learned.  There must be hundreds of ORMs and different database abstraction layers out there but all the free and popular content systems only run on MySQL.  A good database won't make your product good but a crappy database can make your product really shitty.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , it 's popular and it 's not quite standard so a lot of that software that supports it ca n't just drop-in another database like Postgresql or Firebird.As someone that sort of turned away around 4.x when I got hurt by the lack of features , what does " MySQL " even mean anymore ?
You get some features with some backends and not with others , there are multiple companies that have owned different parts with different sorts of licensing limitations or restrictions , when you use it on a web host it 's not uncommon for it to be an older version .
It just seems like this sort of nebulous brand that includes all things database and yet the common incarnations do n't .
Some times you have to pay , some times it free , some times it 's free unless you make money ( is it still that way ?
) Seems to me that if Monty wants to write a new database , he 's more than proven that he has the skillset to do it , the only thing of concern here is the brand " MySQL " and I simply can not imagine why Oracle would even consider parting with that.Seems there are a lot of community lessons to be learned .
There must be hundreds of ORMs and different database abstraction layers out there but all the free and popular content systems only run on MySQL .
A good database wo n't make your product good but a crappy database can make your product really shitty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, it's popular and it's not quite standard so a lot of that software that supports it can't just drop-in another database like Postgresql or Firebird.As someone that sort of turned away around 4.x when I got hurt by the lack of features,  what does "MySQL" even mean anymore?
You get some features with some backends and not with others,  there are multiple companies that have owned different parts with different sorts of licensing limitations or restrictions,  when you use it on a web host it's not uncommon for it to be an older version.
It just seems like this sort of nebulous brand that includes all things database and yet the common incarnations don't.
Some times you have to pay, some times it free, some times it's free unless you make money (is it still that way?
)   Seems to me that if Monty wants to write a new database,  he's more than proven that he has the skillset to do it, the only thing of concern here is the brand "MySQL" and I simply cannot imagine why Oracle would even consider parting with that.Seems there are a lot of community lessons to be learned.
There must be hundreds of ORMs and different database abstraction layers out there but all the free and popular content systems only run on MySQL.
A good database won't make your product good but a crappy database can make your product really shitty.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434554</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434564</id>
	<title>Re:Fork?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260823500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are a number of MySQL forks, one of which is being operated by Monty's company, under the GPL. They don't seem to need BSD for that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are a number of MySQL forks , one of which is being operated by Monty 's company , under the GPL .
They do n't seem to need BSD for that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are a number of MySQL forks, one of which is being operated by Monty's company, under the GPL.
They don't seem to need BSD for that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434474</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1812252_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30437470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30435020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434718
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1812252_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30436466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434574
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434442
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1812252_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1812252_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30435248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30435156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434492
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1812252_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30435304
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434554
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1812252_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30435540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30435020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434718
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1812252_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30441532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30435240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434442
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1812252_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30435194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434554
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1812252_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434554
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1812252_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1812252_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30456282
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30435050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434574
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434442
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1812252_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30441902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434442
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1812252_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30435246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1812252_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30439048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434470
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1812252_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30435310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434718
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1812252_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1812252_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30442098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30435240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434442
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1812252_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1812252_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30436194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30435240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434442
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1812252_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30435474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1812252_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434470
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1812252_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30435614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434554
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1812252_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1812252_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30440740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1812252_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30440718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434492
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1812252_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434442
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1812252_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30435148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1812252_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30440722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30435240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434442
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1812252_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434596
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1812252_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30437726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434574
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434442
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1812252_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30435212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434492
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1812252_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30449502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_1812252.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434470
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434854
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434936
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30439048
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_1812252.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434800
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_1812252.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434442
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30441902
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434620
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434846
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30435240
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30436194
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30440722
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30441532
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30442098
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434574
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30437726
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30435050
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30456282
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30436466
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_1812252.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434554
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434714
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30435194
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30435304
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30435614
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_1812252.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434474
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30435246
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434600
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30435148
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30449502
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434564
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434596
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_1812252.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30440060
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_1812252.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30439842
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_1812252.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434718
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30435020
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30437470
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30435540
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30435310
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_1812252.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434492
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30435156
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30435248
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30435212
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30440718
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_1812252.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434494
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_1812252.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434630
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434782
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30440740
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434994
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434764
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_1812252.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434686
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30435474
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_1812252.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1812252.30434614
</commentlist>
</conversation>
