<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_14_210207</id>
	<title>SFLC Sues 14 Companies For BusyBox GPL Violations</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1260785460000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>eldavojohn writes <i>"The Software Freedom Law Center has filed a lawsuit accusing fourteen companies, including Best Buy, Samsung and Westinghouse, of <a href="http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2009/dec/14/busybox-gpl-lawsuit/">violating the GPL in nearly 20 separate products</a>.  This is similar to earlier <a href="//yro.slashdot.org/story/08/03/17/1854252/Settlement-Reached-in-Verizon-GPL-Violation-Suit">BusyBox GPL suits</a>.  The commercial uses of BusyBox must be much more prolific than anyone could have imagined.  Having dealt with hundreds of compliance problems and finding an average of <a href="http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/11/10/1540242/SFLC-Finds-One-New-GPL-Violation-Per-Day">one violation per day</a>, the SFLC recommends one thing: be responsive to their requests (they try to settle things in private first) lest you find <a href="http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2009/busybox-complaint-2009-12-14.pdf">one of these</a> (PDF) in your inbox."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>eldavojohn writes " The Software Freedom Law Center has filed a lawsuit accusing fourteen companies , including Best Buy , Samsung and Westinghouse , of violating the GPL in nearly 20 separate products .
This is similar to earlier BusyBox GPL suits .
The commercial uses of BusyBox must be much more prolific than anyone could have imagined .
Having dealt with hundreds of compliance problems and finding an average of one violation per day , the SFLC recommends one thing : be responsive to their requests ( they try to settle things in private first ) lest you find one of these ( PDF ) in your inbox .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>eldavojohn writes "The Software Freedom Law Center has filed a lawsuit accusing fourteen companies, including Best Buy, Samsung and Westinghouse, of violating the GPL in nearly 20 separate products.
This is similar to earlier BusyBox GPL suits.
The commercial uses of BusyBox must be much more prolific than anyone could have imagined.
Having dealt with hundreds of compliance problems and finding an average of one violation per day, the SFLC recommends one thing: be responsive to their requests (they try to settle things in private first) lest you find one of these (PDF) in your inbox.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30440938</id>
	<title>Boycott restrictive licenses like GPL!</title>
	<author>AlexLibman</author>
	<datestamp>1260817440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Restrictive licenses like (L)GPL rely on government force, which makes it no different ethically than proprietary software, and its viral and economically unsustainable nature makes it even worse!</p><p><b>Only permissively-licensed software like BSD and Apache is truly "free"</b>, and there's nothing wrong with using proprietary software if it makes economic sense to do so.</p><p>Software freedom should be driven by free market competition, not government force!</p><p>(See my post history for more info.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Restrictive licenses like ( L ) GPL rely on government force , which makes it no different ethically than proprietary software , and its viral and economically unsustainable nature makes it even worse ! Only permissively-licensed software like BSD and Apache is truly " free " , and there 's nothing wrong with using proprietary software if it makes economic sense to do so.Software freedom should be driven by free market competition , not government force !
( See my post history for more info .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Restrictive licenses like (L)GPL rely on government force, which makes it no different ethically than proprietary software, and its viral and economically unsustainable nature makes it even worse!Only permissively-licensed software like BSD and Apache is truly "free", and there's nothing wrong with using proprietary software if it makes economic sense to do so.Software freedom should be driven by free market competition, not government force!
(See my post history for more info.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30437964</id>
	<title>Re:Not such a great idea</title>
	<author>burnin1965</author>
	<datestamp>1260796920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>...without GPL supporters showing equal ignorance...</p></div></blockquote><p>I'm not so sure the parent post you are responding to is a supporter of open source or the GPL. Its not quite clear who "We" refers to in the post and to me suggests anti-GPL. In that context the sentence makes sense.</p><p>We (proprietary close source software developers) don't want people embracing open source...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...without GPL supporters showing equal ignorance...I 'm not so sure the parent post you are responding to is a supporter of open source or the GPL .
Its not quite clear who " We " refers to in the post and to me suggests anti-GPL .
In that context the sentence makes sense.We ( proprietary close source software developers ) do n't want people embracing open source.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...without GPL supporters showing equal ignorance...I'm not so sure the parent post you are responding to is a supporter of open source or the GPL.
Its not quite clear who "We" refers to in the post and to me suggests anti-GPL.
In that context the sentence makes sense.We (proprietary close source software developers) don't want people embracing open source...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436644</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436474</id>
	<title>Re:Not such a great idea -RTFA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260789840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The SFLC always makes contact and in good faith requests a response, compliance with the licence terms or other remedy in a reasonable time period.</p><p>So actions like these encourage people to embrace open source in an entirely legal manner rather than corporate interests ripping off the open source community.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The SFLC always makes contact and in good faith requests a response , compliance with the licence terms or other remedy in a reasonable time period.So actions like these encourage people to embrace open source in an entirely legal manner rather than corporate interests ripping off the open source community .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The SFLC always makes contact and in good faith requests a response, compliance with the licence terms or other remedy in a reasonable time period.So actions like these encourage people to embrace open source in an entirely legal manner rather than corporate interests ripping off the open source community.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436330</id>
	<title>WDTV</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260789240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is it affected?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it affected ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it affected?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30437350</id>
	<title>Re:SFLC Sues 14 Companies for Copyright Violations</title>
	<author>AK Marc</author>
	<datestamp>1260794400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>The point remains, however: all the pirate supporters on this website don't like it when you shove their arguments back in their face. If there were no copyright, or if copyright were limited to 2 years, then Linux 2.6.15 would be in the public domain by now and anyone could put it into any product they wanted without giving back to the people that created it.</i> <br> <br>I think these mythical piracy supporters would be all for that.  Many seem to be of the mind of "if you are going to make this copyright shit that gets in the way of real progress, then we will use your tool against you."  There's nothing wrong with taking the tools of your enemy and using them against him.  And so I think the mythical pirates you refer to would be happy to have the problem you describe, as long as it came with the 2 year cap to copyright you mentioned (or even abolition).</htmltext>
<tokenext>The point remains , however : all the pirate supporters on this website do n't like it when you shove their arguments back in their face .
If there were no copyright , or if copyright were limited to 2 years , then Linux 2.6.15 would be in the public domain by now and anyone could put it into any product they wanted without giving back to the people that created it .
I think these mythical piracy supporters would be all for that .
Many seem to be of the mind of " if you are going to make this copyright shit that gets in the way of real progress , then we will use your tool against you .
" There 's nothing wrong with taking the tools of your enemy and using them against him .
And so I think the mythical pirates you refer to would be happy to have the problem you describe , as long as it came with the 2 year cap to copyright you mentioned ( or even abolition ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The point remains, however: all the pirate supporters on this website don't like it when you shove their arguments back in their face.
If there were no copyright, or if copyright were limited to 2 years, then Linux 2.6.15 would be in the public domain by now and anyone could put it into any product they wanted without giving back to the people that created it.
I think these mythical piracy supporters would be all for that.
Many seem to be of the mind of "if you are going to make this copyright shit that gets in the way of real progress, then we will use your tool against you.
"  There's nothing wrong with taking the tools of your enemy and using them against him.
And so I think the mythical pirates you refer to would be happy to have the problem you describe, as long as it came with the 2 year cap to copyright you mentioned (or even abolition).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436922</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30441384</id>
	<title>Re:SFLC Sues 14 Companies for Copyright Violations</title>
	<author>the\_womble</author>
	<datestamp>1260910380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would not actually have a problem with that, especially with regard to software (I think there is a good argument for a reasonable copyright term or about 20 years on books, films music etc.).</p><p>Suppose we had a two year copyright on software and no software patents. Developers could reverse engineer any format or codec that is more than two years old. There would be a huge incentive to improve proprietary software so that the latest version is a sufficient improvement on the two year old one to the worth paying for.</p><p>So people could make proprietary forks of two year old GPL stuff. Of course they would have to back-port all the security fixes and any new features they want.</p><p>It sounds good to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would not actually have a problem with that , especially with regard to software ( I think there is a good argument for a reasonable copyright term or about 20 years on books , films music etc .
) .Suppose we had a two year copyright on software and no software patents .
Developers could reverse engineer any format or codec that is more than two years old .
There would be a huge incentive to improve proprietary software so that the latest version is a sufficient improvement on the two year old one to the worth paying for.So people could make proprietary forks of two year old GPL stuff .
Of course they would have to back-port all the security fixes and any new features they want.It sounds good to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would not actually have a problem with that, especially with regard to software (I think there is a good argument for a reasonable copyright term or about 20 years on books, films music etc.
).Suppose we had a two year copyright on software and no software patents.
Developers could reverse engineer any format or codec that is more than two years old.
There would be a huge incentive to improve proprietary software so that the latest version is a sufficient improvement on the two year old one to the worth paying for.So people could make proprietary forks of two year old GPL stuff.
Of course they would have to back-port all the security fixes and any new features they want.It sounds good to me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436922</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436448</id>
	<title>Re:Not such a great idea</title>
	<author>datajack</author>
	<datestamp>1260789720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>If they don't want to play by the rules, we won't miss them. If they do, then they will find a great resource and profit from mutual cooperation.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If they do n't want to play by the rules , we wo n't miss them .
If they do , then they will find a great resource and profit from mutual cooperation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they don't want to play by the rules, we won't miss them.
If they do, then they will find a great resource and profit from mutual cooperation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30441550</id>
	<title>Re:provide non-"free" alternatives</title>
	<author>RAMMS+EIN</author>
	<datestamp>1260869040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are plenty of nonfree alternatives. For example, VxWorks, QNX and Windows CE. And some companies actually use those in situations where other companies would use Linux + Busybox.</p><p>However, even nonfree software licenses are often violated. Too many people assume that once you have your copy, you can do whatever you want with it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are plenty of nonfree alternatives .
For example , VxWorks , QNX and Windows CE .
And some companies actually use those in situations where other companies would use Linux + Busybox.However , even nonfree software licenses are often violated .
Too many people assume that once you have your copy , you can do whatever you want with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are plenty of nonfree alternatives.
For example, VxWorks, QNX and Windows CE.
And some companies actually use those in situations where other companies would use Linux + Busybox.However, even nonfree software licenses are often violated.
Too many people assume that once you have your copy, you can do whatever you want with it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30437586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30441874</id>
	<title>Re:</title>
	<author>clint999</author>
	<datestamp>1260873000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>What am I missing?  I must be missing something for all the complaints I read.</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>What am I missing ?
I must be missing something for all the complaints I read .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What am I missing?
I must be missing something for all the complaints I read.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436460</id>
	<title>Re:Not such a great idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260789780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And Microsoft shouldn't sue any of the Mom-n-Pop computer shops for selling boxes with phony Windows license keys, as it would discourage anyone from selling boxes based on commercial / propriatary software.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And Microsoft should n't sue any of the Mom-n-Pop computer shops for selling boxes with phony Windows license keys , as it would discourage anyone from selling boxes based on commercial / propriatary software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And Microsoft shouldn't sue any of the Mom-n-Pop computer shops for selling boxes with phony Windows license keys, as it would discourage anyone from selling boxes based on commercial / propriatary software.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30437982</id>
	<title>Re:SFLC Sues 14 Companies for Copyright Violations</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260796980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are a bit misguided. There is nothing wrong regarding the concept of copyright and commercial distribution of a work of art without the author's authorization is widely and explicitly frowned upon. The only gripe regarding the concept of a purely capitalist copyright (i.e., any work of art is just a commercial product, indented to be sold and generate income) that the US is forcing onto the world is that it eliminates the concept of fair use, takes away the copyright from the authors and artists and grants them to shady people and even legal entities such as corporations and grants the copyright owners a totalitarian control on the production, distribution and dissemination of information and cultural works.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are a bit misguided .
There is nothing wrong regarding the concept of copyright and commercial distribution of a work of art without the author 's authorization is widely and explicitly frowned upon .
The only gripe regarding the concept of a purely capitalist copyright ( i.e. , any work of art is just a commercial product , indented to be sold and generate income ) that the US is forcing onto the world is that it eliminates the concept of fair use , takes away the copyright from the authors and artists and grants them to shady people and even legal entities such as corporations and grants the copyright owners a totalitarian control on the production , distribution and dissemination of information and cultural works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are a bit misguided.
There is nothing wrong regarding the concept of copyright and commercial distribution of a work of art without the author's authorization is widely and explicitly frowned upon.
The only gripe regarding the concept of a purely capitalist copyright (i.e., any work of art is just a commercial product, indented to be sold and generate income) that the US is forcing onto the world is that it eliminates the concept of fair use, takes away the copyright from the authors and artists and grants them to shady people and even legal entities such as corporations and grants the copyright owners a totalitarian control on the production, distribution and dissemination of information and cultural works.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436922</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30450410</id>
	<title>Re:But who gets paid?</title>
	<author>Urkki</author>
	<datestamp>1260874020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Well, IANAL, but as anyone can claim to be the owner, I think anyone can sue.</p><p>And logically, that one gets paid or gets the debt, and funds the lawsuit, as a result of being the one who sued.</p><p>About e): Well, I guess same as someone can &ldquo;troll&rsquo; by taking the free software (work of others) and selling it for money. But that&rsquo;s kinda the point of GPL, no? Dunno.</p><p>Anyone who is a lawyer here to enlighten us?</p></div><p>As others have written, by default the authors own the copyrights to their specific creations.</p><p>The only possibility for "trolling" would be blackmailing, ie. discover product with GPL software, and demand money or you will inform the copyright holder about the violation.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , IANAL , but as anyone can claim to be the owner , I think anyone can sue.And logically , that one gets paid or gets the debt , and funds the lawsuit , as a result of being the one who sued.About e ) : Well , I guess same as someone can    troll    by taking the free software ( work of others ) and selling it for money .
But that    s kinda the point of GPL , no ?
Dunno.Anyone who is a lawyer here to enlighten us ? As others have written , by default the authors own the copyrights to their specific creations.The only possibility for " trolling " would be blackmailing , ie .
discover product with GPL software , and demand money or you will inform the copyright holder about the violation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, IANAL, but as anyone can claim to be the owner, I think anyone can sue.And logically, that one gets paid or gets the debt, and funds the lawsuit, as a result of being the one who sued.About e): Well, I guess same as someone can “troll’ by taking the free software (work of others) and selling it for money.
But that’s kinda the point of GPL, no?
Dunno.Anyone who is a lawyer here to enlighten us?As others have written, by default the authors own the copyrights to their specific creations.The only possibility for "trolling" would be blackmailing, ie.
discover product with GPL software, and demand money or you will inform the copyright holder about the violation.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30437636</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30438994</id>
	<title>Great way to encourage use of open-source!</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1260802020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What a great way to encourage use of open-source software: sue people! Oh, wait, you say you aren't suing them for using the source code, but because they refuse to release their modifications? Hmmm.... er, well nevermind, carry on. Why are they having so much trouble releasing their modifications when someone requests them?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What a great way to encourage use of open-source software : sue people !
Oh , wait , you say you are n't suing them for using the source code , but because they refuse to release their modifications ?
Hmmm.... er , well nevermind , carry on .
Why are they having so much trouble releasing their modifications when someone requests them ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What a great way to encourage use of open-source software: sue people!
Oh, wait, you say you aren't suing them for using the source code, but because they refuse to release their modifications?
Hmmm.... er, well nevermind, carry on.
Why are they having so much trouble releasing their modifications when someone requests them?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30438036</id>
	<title>Really - who owns the copyright?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260797280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Paragraph 31 of the complaint asserts that "Mr. Andersen is, and at all relevant times has been, a copyright owner"</p><p>Really?  Has there been an assignment by the authors of all of the pieces of busybox?  (Wasn't Bruce Perens the original author?)</p><p>I've seen the FSF do a good job of getting those assignments, but I don't see any claim of those here.</p><p>And without those assignments Paragraph 31 might be construed as incorrect.  And without formal registrations of all of the pieces by all of the authors (or a cumulative registration supported by assignments) there could be some weakness in this complaint.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Paragraph 31 of the complaint asserts that " Mr. Andersen is , and at all relevant times has been , a copyright owner " Really ?
Has there been an assignment by the authors of all of the pieces of busybox ?
( Was n't Bruce Perens the original author ?
) I 've seen the FSF do a good job of getting those assignments , but I do n't see any claim of those here.And without those assignments Paragraph 31 might be construed as incorrect .
And without formal registrations of all of the pieces by all of the authors ( or a cumulative registration supported by assignments ) there could be some weakness in this complaint .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Paragraph 31 of the complaint asserts that "Mr. Andersen is, and at all relevant times has been, a copyright owner"Really?
Has there been an assignment by the authors of all of the pieces of busybox?
(Wasn't Bruce Perens the original author?
)I've seen the FSF do a good job of getting those assignments, but I don't see any claim of those here.And without those assignments Paragraph 31 might be construed as incorrect.
And without formal registrations of all of the pieces by all of the authors (or a cumulative registration supported by assignments) there could be some weakness in this complaint.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30441662</id>
	<title>Re:How do I comply?</title>
	<author>managementboy</author>
	<datestamp>1260870540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are probably better informed people on Slashdot than me on this topic. As far as I know you only need to provide a document with your hardware, that states that you are using GPLed software in your product and that if your customer so wishes, you would gladly provide the source code upon request. I personally prefer when companies, regardless of the size/relevance of their changes to the software, post these on their website. It just feels more "community" like, which is also a nice way of marketing your company to open source friendly customers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are probably better informed people on Slashdot than me on this topic .
As far as I know you only need to provide a document with your hardware , that states that you are using GPLed software in your product and that if your customer so wishes , you would gladly provide the source code upon request .
I personally prefer when companies , regardless of the size/relevance of their changes to the software , post these on their website .
It just feels more " community " like , which is also a nice way of marketing your company to open source friendly customers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are probably better informed people on Slashdot than me on this topic.
As far as I know you only need to provide a document with your hardware, that states that you are using GPLed software in your product and that if your customer so wishes, you would gladly provide the source code upon request.
I personally prefer when companies, regardless of the size/relevance of their changes to the software, post these on their website.
It just feels more "community" like, which is also a nice way of marketing your company to open source friendly customers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30441474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30437686</id>
	<title>Re:SFLC Sues 14 Companies for Copyright Violations</title>
	<author>plasticsquirrel</author>
	<datestamp>1260795660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You are misunderstanding the purpose of "copyleft" licenses like the GPL and CC Attrib-ShareAlike. These were created to cleverly manipulate the concept of copyrights to ensure certain freedoms for everyone, not simply to protect the interests of the copyright holder. When a company like this is sued for violating the GPL, it is principally for denying certain freedoms to everyone else. I'm sorry I have to quote the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft" title="wikipedia.org">Wikipedia article</a> [wikipedia.org] for this subject on Slashdot (you people should all know this stuff, get off my lawn, etc.), but:<blockquote><div><p>Copyleft is a play on the word copyright to describe the practice of using copyright law to remove restrictions on distributing copies and modified versions of a work for others and requiring that the same freedoms be preserved in modified versions.</p></div></blockquote><p>Recently it's been popular on Slashdot to call out everyone here for being a hypocrite without considering the actual differences in the purposes of ordinary copyrights and the "copyleft" licenses. So there you have it, do you remember the basics of free software now, Slashdot?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You are misunderstanding the purpose of " copyleft " licenses like the GPL and CC Attrib-ShareAlike .
These were created to cleverly manipulate the concept of copyrights to ensure certain freedoms for everyone , not simply to protect the interests of the copyright holder .
When a company like this is sued for violating the GPL , it is principally for denying certain freedoms to everyone else .
I 'm sorry I have to quote the Wikipedia article [ wikipedia.org ] for this subject on Slashdot ( you people should all know this stuff , get off my lawn , etc .
) , but : Copyleft is a play on the word copyright to describe the practice of using copyright law to remove restrictions on distributing copies and modified versions of a work for others and requiring that the same freedoms be preserved in modified versions.Recently it 's been popular on Slashdot to call out everyone here for being a hypocrite without considering the actual differences in the purposes of ordinary copyrights and the " copyleft " licenses .
So there you have it , do you remember the basics of free software now , Slashdot ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are misunderstanding the purpose of "copyleft" licenses like the GPL and CC Attrib-ShareAlike.
These were created to cleverly manipulate the concept of copyrights to ensure certain freedoms for everyone, not simply to protect the interests of the copyright holder.
When a company like this is sued for violating the GPL, it is principally for denying certain freedoms to everyone else.
I'm sorry I have to quote the Wikipedia article [wikipedia.org] for this subject on Slashdot (you people should all know this stuff, get off my lawn, etc.
), but:Copyleft is a play on the word copyright to describe the practice of using copyright law to remove restrictions on distributing copies and modified versions of a work for others and requiring that the same freedoms be preserved in modified versions.Recently it's been popular on Slashdot to call out everyone here for being a hypocrite without considering the actual differences in the purposes of ordinary copyrights and the "copyleft" licenses.
So there you have it, do you remember the basics of free software now, Slashdot?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436922</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30442526</id>
	<title>GPL FUD injection</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260881640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>A license that prevents you from restricting my freedom is somehow restrictive ? I don't think so, trollie<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)

&gt; (See my post history for more info.)

NO !!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>A license that prevents you from restricting my freedom is somehow restrictive ?
I do n't think so , trollie ; ) &gt; ( See my post history for more info .
) NO ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A license that prevents you from restricting my freedom is somehow restrictive ?
I don't think so, trollie ;)

&gt; (See my post history for more info.
)

NO !!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30440938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30450676</id>
	<title>Re:provide non-"free" alternatives</title>
	<author>Urkki</author>
	<datestamp>1260874920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Somebody should create closed source versions of the open source projects that are most often ripped off.</p></div><p>There's certainly a business case here. However, it's not easy, and there's competition (like commercial embedded operating systems) already. The most major difficulty would be marketing. How do you find the customers (who today get the GPL version with a command like 'apt-get source busybox', and know it), and convince them that your proprietary version is any good, and doesn't have a million bugs that have been ironed out from the GPL version by the millions of users.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Somebody should create closed source versions of the open source projects that are most often ripped off.There 's certainly a business case here .
However , it 's not easy , and there 's competition ( like commercial embedded operating systems ) already .
The most major difficulty would be marketing .
How do you find the customers ( who today get the GPL version with a command like 'apt-get source busybox ' , and know it ) , and convince them that your proprietary version is any good , and does n't have a million bugs that have been ironed out from the GPL version by the millions of users .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Somebody should create closed source versions of the open source projects that are most often ripped off.There's certainly a business case here.
However, it's not easy, and there's competition (like commercial embedded operating systems) already.
The most major difficulty would be marketing.
How do you find the customers (who today get the GPL version with a command like 'apt-get source busybox', and know it), and convince them that your proprietary version is any good, and doesn't have a million bugs that have been ironed out from the GPL version by the millions of users.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30437586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30442068</id>
	<title>From the PDF: Judge Scheindlin?</title>
	<author>jimicus</author>
	<datestamp>1260875880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OK, I read the PDF.  First thing that grabbed me was "Judge Scheindlin".</p><p>Isn't that the judge on Judge Judy?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OK , I read the PDF .
First thing that grabbed me was " Judge Scheindlin " .Is n't that the judge on Judge Judy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK, I read the PDF.
First thing that grabbed me was "Judge Scheindlin".Isn't that the judge on Judge Judy?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30437636</id>
	<title>Re:But who gets paid?</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1260795480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, IANAL, but as anyone can claim to be the owner, I think anyone can sue.</p><p>And logically, that one gets paid or gets the debt, and funds the lawsuit, as a result of being the one who sued.</p><p>About e): Well, I guess same as someone can &ldquo;troll&rsquo; by taking the free software (work of others) and selling it for money. But that&rsquo;s kinda the point of GPL, no? Dunno.</p><p>Anyone who is a lawyer here to enlighten us?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , IANAL , but as anyone can claim to be the owner , I think anyone can sue.And logically , that one gets paid or gets the debt , and funds the lawsuit , as a result of being the one who sued.About e ) : Well , I guess same as someone can    troll    by taking the free software ( work of others ) and selling it for money .
But that    s kinda the point of GPL , no ?
Dunno.Anyone who is a lawyer here to enlighten us ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, IANAL, but as anyone can claim to be the owner, I think anyone can sue.And logically, that one gets paid or gets the debt, and funds the lawsuit, as a result of being the one who sued.About e): Well, I guess same as someone can “troll’ by taking the free software (work of others) and selling it for money.
But that’s kinda the point of GPL, no?
Dunno.Anyone who is a lawyer here to enlighten us?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30440940</id>
	<title>GPL  BSD</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260817500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This will get modded down to hell for this, but:</p><p>This is great.  This is *why* the GPL is great.  The *BSD crowd just whine when companies "make money from *BSD without giving back", and think the GPL is some manifesto against ever charging money (which is news to Red Hat).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This will get modded down to hell for this , but : This is great .
This is * why * the GPL is great .
The * BSD crowd just whine when companies " make money from * BSD without giving back " , and think the GPL is some manifesto against ever charging money ( which is news to Red Hat ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This will get modded down to hell for this, but:This is great.
This is *why* the GPL is great.
The *BSD crowd just whine when companies "make money from *BSD without giving back", and think the GPL is some manifesto against ever charging money (which is news to Red Hat).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436446</id>
	<title>Re:Not such a great idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260789720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They need to. Else GPL is worth nothing. Before using GPL code you should just know what you are getting yourself into.</p><p>We use GPL code at my workplace. Just simple stuff like the linux kernel, busybox, just as a base system. But we do comply to GPL by allowing customers to request those pieces of software. (As far as I know none has ever done so)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They need to .
Else GPL is worth nothing .
Before using GPL code you should just know what you are getting yourself into.We use GPL code at my workplace .
Just simple stuff like the linux kernel , busybox , just as a base system .
But we do comply to GPL by allowing customers to request those pieces of software .
( As far as I know none has ever done so )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They need to.
Else GPL is worth nothing.
Before using GPL code you should just know what you are getting yourself into.We use GPL code at my workplace.
Just simple stuff like the linux kernel, busybox, just as a base system.
But we do comply to GPL by allowing customers to request those pieces of software.
(As far as I know none has ever done so)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30441586</id>
	<title>Releasing source code enough?</title>
	<author>RAMMS+EIN</author>
	<datestamp>1260869580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While on the topic, I have a question. Is releasing the source code to whatever copyleft software you are using actually enough for compliance? For example, suppose I made a device and used a modified Linux kernel, some kind of build from unmodified Busybox sources and some proprietary software, would offering a download of the modified Linux source code and a download of the Busybox source code exactly as the Busybox project supplies it be enough?</p><p>Note that while such releases would presumably allow one to build ones own kernel and Busybox based on the same sources being used in the product, there would be no scripts or instructions for re-creating the same kernel and Busybox binaries used in the product, let alone instructions for creating a complete, usable firmware image for the product.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While on the topic , I have a question .
Is releasing the source code to whatever copyleft software you are using actually enough for compliance ?
For example , suppose I made a device and used a modified Linux kernel , some kind of build from unmodified Busybox sources and some proprietary software , would offering a download of the modified Linux source code and a download of the Busybox source code exactly as the Busybox project supplies it be enough ? Note that while such releases would presumably allow one to build ones own kernel and Busybox based on the same sources being used in the product , there would be no scripts or instructions for re-creating the same kernel and Busybox binaries used in the product , let alone instructions for creating a complete , usable firmware image for the product .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While on the topic, I have a question.
Is releasing the source code to whatever copyleft software you are using actually enough for compliance?
For example, suppose I made a device and used a modified Linux kernel, some kind of build from unmodified Busybox sources and some proprietary software, would offering a download of the modified Linux source code and a download of the Busybox source code exactly as the Busybox project supplies it be enough?Note that while such releases would presumably allow one to build ones own kernel and Busybox based on the same sources being used in the product, there would be no scripts or instructions for re-creating the same kernel and Busybox binaries used in the product, let alone instructions for creating a complete, usable firmware image for the product.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30437748</id>
	<title>Re:SFLC Sues 14 Companies for Copyright Violations</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260795960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Slashdot is a community with a lot of different groups and opinions represented.</p><p>You can't just take two opinions that have been expressed at various times, declare them incompatible, and pretend that you have scored some kind of point.</p><p>There are people here that are for an abolishment of copyright. There are also people here that a big believers in the GPL. This does not mean that there is even one slashdotter out there that have both opinions!</p><p>If you find one, you may have a debate, but until then you are just doing the straw man thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Slashdot is a community with a lot of different groups and opinions represented.You ca n't just take two opinions that have been expressed at various times , declare them incompatible , and pretend that you have scored some kind of point.There are people here that are for an abolishment of copyright .
There are also people here that a big believers in the GPL .
This does not mean that there is even one slashdotter out there that have both opinions ! If you find one , you may have a debate , but until then you are just doing the straw man thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Slashdot is a community with a lot of different groups and opinions represented.You can't just take two opinions that have been expressed at various times, declare them incompatible, and pretend that you have scored some kind of point.There are people here that are for an abolishment of copyright.
There are also people here that a big believers in the GPL.
This does not mean that there is even one slashdotter out there that have both opinions!If you find one, you may have a debate, but until then you are just doing the straw man thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436922</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436922</id>
	<title>SFLC Sues 14 Companies for Copyright Violations</title>
	<author>AcidPenguin9873</author>
	<datestamp>1260792180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What the hell, I have karma to burn:  It doesn't sound as nice when I put it that way, does it?</p><p>Granted, (before I get 20 responses telling me just how many ways the SFLC is different than the RIAA), I acknowledge that the tactics that the SFLC is using are actually sane and civil.  The point remains, however: all the pirate supporters on this website don't like it when you shove their arguments back in their face.  If there were no copyright, or if copyright were limited to 2 years, then Linux 2.6.15 would be in the public domain by now and anyone could put it into any product they wanted without giving back to the people that created it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What the hell , I have karma to burn : It does n't sound as nice when I put it that way , does it ? Granted , ( before I get 20 responses telling me just how many ways the SFLC is different than the RIAA ) , I acknowledge that the tactics that the SFLC is using are actually sane and civil .
The point remains , however : all the pirate supporters on this website do n't like it when you shove their arguments back in their face .
If there were no copyright , or if copyright were limited to 2 years , then Linux 2.6.15 would be in the public domain by now and anyone could put it into any product they wanted without giving back to the people that created it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What the hell, I have karma to burn:  It doesn't sound as nice when I put it that way, does it?Granted, (before I get 20 responses telling me just how many ways the SFLC is different than the RIAA), I acknowledge that the tactics that the SFLC is using are actually sane and civil.
The point remains, however: all the pirate supporters on this website don't like it when you shove their arguments back in their face.
If there were no copyright, or if copyright were limited to 2 years, then Linux 2.6.15 would be in the public domain by now and anyone could put it into any product they wanted without giving back to the people that created it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30437626</id>
	<title>Re:I finally understand!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260795420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except that:</p><p>3) Pay lawyers</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except that : 3 ) Pay lawyers</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except that:3) Pay lawyers</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30437256</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30441474</id>
	<title>How do I comply?</title>
	<author>SharpFang</author>
	<datestamp>1260868200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Okay, my commercial, and definitely closed-source embedded product uses Linux and Busybox (plus a big closed-source app running on top of that, doing the actual work). This is an industrial device, costing good 5-digit figure. There are some small modifications to the kernel that can be released (but serve no real point for the "real world", because they are tailored for the app and underlying proprietary hardware). It is also about impossible anyone would ever wish to mess with the code, simply because of risk associated with screwing up the expensive hardware.</p><p>What is the best, right way to comply with GPL? Publish kernel+modules+sources on WWW? Attach a CD to the documentation book? How much am I required to publish?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay , my commercial , and definitely closed-source embedded product uses Linux and Busybox ( plus a big closed-source app running on top of that , doing the actual work ) .
This is an industrial device , costing good 5-digit figure .
There are some small modifications to the kernel that can be released ( but serve no real point for the " real world " , because they are tailored for the app and underlying proprietary hardware ) .
It is also about impossible anyone would ever wish to mess with the code , simply because of risk associated with screwing up the expensive hardware.What is the best , right way to comply with GPL ?
Publish kernel + modules + sources on WWW ?
Attach a CD to the documentation book ?
How much am I required to publish ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Okay, my commercial, and definitely closed-source embedded product uses Linux and Busybox (plus a big closed-source app running on top of that, doing the actual work).
This is an industrial device, costing good 5-digit figure.
There are some small modifications to the kernel that can be released (but serve no real point for the "real world", because they are tailored for the app and underlying proprietary hardware).
It is also about impossible anyone would ever wish to mess with the code, simply because of risk associated with screwing up the expensive hardware.What is the best, right way to comply with GPL?
Publish kernel+modules+sources on WWW?
Attach a CD to the documentation book?
How much am I required to publish?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30437704</id>
	<title>Credible arguments for short/no term of copyright?</title>
	<author>jbn-o</author>
	<datestamp>1260795840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can you point to serious refutations of copyright where the point of the argument is that copyright should last 2 years or not exist at all?  FSF speakers have long pointed out the problem of no copyright, a very short term of copyright, and overly long copyright.  My experience is that calls for no or very short terms of copyright are posited by people who ought to reconsider what is in society's best interests.</p><p>No copyright means no end to the tyranny of proprietary software (said programs never enter the public domain even on paper), no way for free software developers to require credit when building on their work (as some free software licenses require), and no reciprocal contribution to the commons when distributing or conveying the work or a derivative (like the GPL does).</p><p>Short terms of copyright (like the 2-year term you mention) means that proprietors can incorporate strongly copylefted work into their proprietary software during the time in which the software is reasonably current and likely to provide a competitive edge.  This means even those who want to a defensible commons (like what the GPL maintains) cannot do so based on copyright law alone.  A short term of copyright came up in <a href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/pirate-party.html" title="gnu.org">Richard Stallman's critique of the Swedish Pirate Party</a> [gnu.org]:</p><blockquote><div><p>How would the Swedish Pirate Party's platform affect copylefted free software? After five years, its source code would go into the public domain, and proprietary software developers would be able to include it in their programs. But what about the reverse case?

</p><p>Proprietary software is restricted by EULAs, not just by copyright, and the users don't have the source code. Even if copyright permits noncommercial sharing, the EULA may forbid it. In addition, the users, not having the source code, do not control what the program does when they run it. To run such a program is to surrender your freedom and give the developer control over you.</p><p>So what would be the effect of terminating this program's copyright after 5 years? This would not require the developer to release source code, and presumably most will never do so. Users, still denied the source code, would still be unable to use the program in freedom. The program could even have a "time bomb" in it to make it stop working after 5 years, in which case the "public domain" copies would not run at all.</p><p>Thus, the Pirate Party's proposal would give proprietary software developers the use of GPL-covered source code after 5 years, but it would not give free software developers the use of proprietary source code, not after 5 years or even 50 years. The Free World would get the bad, but not the good. The difference between source code and object code and the practice of using EULAs would give proprietary software an effective exception from the general rule of 5-year copyright -- one that free software does not share.</p></div> </blockquote><p>Most countries give people the means to place their work into the public domain immediately upon publication or else waive copyright restrictions their laws mandate.  Building the PD in this way simply doesn't strike me as an impediment to social progress.  But those looking to provide alternatives to proprietary software in order to share freedom for all computer users don't have the PD as a viable option; we would be universal donors and proprietors would build upon our works as universal recipients.  I certainly don't want to treat proprietors as charities.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can you point to serious refutations of copyright where the point of the argument is that copyright should last 2 years or not exist at all ?
FSF speakers have long pointed out the problem of no copyright , a very short term of copyright , and overly long copyright .
My experience is that calls for no or very short terms of copyright are posited by people who ought to reconsider what is in society 's best interests.No copyright means no end to the tyranny of proprietary software ( said programs never enter the public domain even on paper ) , no way for free software developers to require credit when building on their work ( as some free software licenses require ) , and no reciprocal contribution to the commons when distributing or conveying the work or a derivative ( like the GPL does ) .Short terms of copyright ( like the 2-year term you mention ) means that proprietors can incorporate strongly copylefted work into their proprietary software during the time in which the software is reasonably current and likely to provide a competitive edge .
This means even those who want to a defensible commons ( like what the GPL maintains ) can not do so based on copyright law alone .
A short term of copyright came up in Richard Stallman 's critique of the Swedish Pirate Party [ gnu.org ] : How would the Swedish Pirate Party 's platform affect copylefted free software ?
After five years , its source code would go into the public domain , and proprietary software developers would be able to include it in their programs .
But what about the reverse case ?
Proprietary software is restricted by EULAs , not just by copyright , and the users do n't have the source code .
Even if copyright permits noncommercial sharing , the EULA may forbid it .
In addition , the users , not having the source code , do not control what the program does when they run it .
To run such a program is to surrender your freedom and give the developer control over you.So what would be the effect of terminating this program 's copyright after 5 years ?
This would not require the developer to release source code , and presumably most will never do so .
Users , still denied the source code , would still be unable to use the program in freedom .
The program could even have a " time bomb " in it to make it stop working after 5 years , in which case the " public domain " copies would not run at all.Thus , the Pirate Party 's proposal would give proprietary software developers the use of GPL-covered source code after 5 years , but it would not give free software developers the use of proprietary source code , not after 5 years or even 50 years .
The Free World would get the bad , but not the good .
The difference between source code and object code and the practice of using EULAs would give proprietary software an effective exception from the general rule of 5-year copyright -- one that free software does not share .
Most countries give people the means to place their work into the public domain immediately upon publication or else waive copyright restrictions their laws mandate .
Building the PD in this way simply does n't strike me as an impediment to social progress .
But those looking to provide alternatives to proprietary software in order to share freedom for all computer users do n't have the PD as a viable option ; we would be universal donors and proprietors would build upon our works as universal recipients .
I certainly do n't want to treat proprietors as charities .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can you point to serious refutations of copyright where the point of the argument is that copyright should last 2 years or not exist at all?
FSF speakers have long pointed out the problem of no copyright, a very short term of copyright, and overly long copyright.
My experience is that calls for no or very short terms of copyright are posited by people who ought to reconsider what is in society's best interests.No copyright means no end to the tyranny of proprietary software (said programs never enter the public domain even on paper), no way for free software developers to require credit when building on their work (as some free software licenses require), and no reciprocal contribution to the commons when distributing or conveying the work or a derivative (like the GPL does).Short terms of copyright (like the 2-year term you mention) means that proprietors can incorporate strongly copylefted work into their proprietary software during the time in which the software is reasonably current and likely to provide a competitive edge.
This means even those who want to a defensible commons (like what the GPL maintains) cannot do so based on copyright law alone.
A short term of copyright came up in Richard Stallman's critique of the Swedish Pirate Party [gnu.org]:How would the Swedish Pirate Party's platform affect copylefted free software?
After five years, its source code would go into the public domain, and proprietary software developers would be able to include it in their programs.
But what about the reverse case?
Proprietary software is restricted by EULAs, not just by copyright, and the users don't have the source code.
Even if copyright permits noncommercial sharing, the EULA may forbid it.
In addition, the users, not having the source code, do not control what the program does when they run it.
To run such a program is to surrender your freedom and give the developer control over you.So what would be the effect of terminating this program's copyright after 5 years?
This would not require the developer to release source code, and presumably most will never do so.
Users, still denied the source code, would still be unable to use the program in freedom.
The program could even have a "time bomb" in it to make it stop working after 5 years, in which case the "public domain" copies would not run at all.Thus, the Pirate Party's proposal would give proprietary software developers the use of GPL-covered source code after 5 years, but it would not give free software developers the use of proprietary source code, not after 5 years or even 50 years.
The Free World would get the bad, but not the good.
The difference between source code and object code and the practice of using EULAs would give proprietary software an effective exception from the general rule of 5-year copyright -- one that free software does not share.
Most countries give people the means to place their work into the public domain immediately upon publication or else waive copyright restrictions their laws mandate.
Building the PD in this way simply doesn't strike me as an impediment to social progress.
But those looking to provide alternatives to proprietary software in order to share freedom for all computer users don't have the PD as a viable option; we would be universal donors and proprietors would build upon our works as universal recipients.
I certainly don't want to treat proprietors as charities.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436922</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30450772</id>
	<title>Re:How do I comply?</title>
	<author>Urkki</author>
	<datestamp>1260875280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If your binary distribution (the industrial device) isn't publicly available, then the source code needn't be either. You are obliged to provide the source only to those who have the binary code.</p><p>If your embedded device has large enough disk, just put the source code there, available via http or ssh or ftp. In your case it might even be sensible to include gcc in the disk (if it's large enough), so the end-user can actually modify the source in-site and recompile inside the device. This has the bonus, that if they break it, they'll call you and you get to do some billable hours fixing their mess<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If your binary distribution ( the industrial device ) is n't publicly available , then the source code need n't be either .
You are obliged to provide the source only to those who have the binary code.If your embedded device has large enough disk , just put the source code there , available via http or ssh or ftp .
In your case it might even be sensible to include gcc in the disk ( if it 's large enough ) , so the end-user can actually modify the source in-site and recompile inside the device .
This has the bonus , that if they break it , they 'll call you and you get to do some billable hours fixing their mess : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If your binary distribution (the industrial device) isn't publicly available, then the source code needn't be either.
You are obliged to provide the source only to those who have the binary code.If your embedded device has large enough disk, just put the source code there, available via http or ssh or ftp.
In your case it might even be sensible to include gcc in the disk (if it's large enough), so the end-user can actually modify the source in-site and recompile inside the device.
This has the bonus, that if they break it, they'll call you and you get to do some billable hours fixing their mess :-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30441474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30437256</id>
	<title>I finally understand!!!</title>
	<author>wjsteele</author>
	<datestamp>1260793980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So this is how you make money with F/OSS.<br> <br>

1.)  Write F/OSS.<br>
2.)  File Lawsuits against infringers.<br>
3.)  ???<br>
4.)  Profit!!!<br> <br>

I'm curious... how much money would he have made from the software if he didn't sue?<br> <br>

Bill</htmltext>
<tokenext>So this is how you make money with F/OSS .
1. ) Write F/OSS .
2. ) File Lawsuits against infringers .
3. ) ? ? ?
4. ) Profit ! ! !
I 'm curious... how much money would he have made from the software if he did n't sue ?
Bill</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So this is how you make money with F/OSS.
1.)  Write F/OSS.
2.)  File Lawsuits against infringers.
3.)  ???
4.)  Profit!!!
I'm curious... how much money would he have made from the software if he didn't sue?
Bill</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30437586</id>
	<title>provide non-"free" alternatives</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260795300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Somebody should create closed source versions of the open source projects that are most often ripped off. Then give away (or sell) the proprietary versions. I don't mean fork it. I mean from scratch, in a clean room environment, to keep it untainted. It's the reverse situation of making an open source alternative to a free product.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Somebody should create closed source versions of the open source projects that are most often ripped off .
Then give away ( or sell ) the proprietary versions .
I do n't mean fork it .
I mean from scratch , in a clean room environment , to keep it untainted .
It 's the reverse situation of making an open source alternative to a free product .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Somebody should create closed source versions of the open source projects that are most often ripped off.
Then give away (or sell) the proprietary versions.
I don't mean fork it.
I mean from scratch, in a clean room environment, to keep it untainted.
It's the reverse situation of making an open source alternative to a free product.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30440724</id>
	<title>Re:Got an e-mail from the SFLC this morning</title>
	<author>Dayofswords</author>
	<datestamp>1260815340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How did you find out about Busybox being in it? i haven't figured out people find out gpl code is in something.
<p>
like here, there is a tv product, how would you find out its using busybox anyways?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How did you find out about Busybox being in it ?
i have n't figured out people find out gpl code is in something .
like here , there is a tv product , how would you find out its using busybox anyways ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How did you find out about Busybox being in it?
i haven't figured out people find out gpl code is in something.
like here, there is a tv product, how would you find out its using busybox anyways?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30439394</id>
	<title>Yep</title>
	<author>Akita24</author>
	<datestamp>1260804540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A nice list of all of the same assholes that constantly whine about how their IP is being stolen. Funny how everybody else is the pirate/bad guy/criminal/whatever but the logic never applies to them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A nice list of all of the same assholes that constantly whine about how their IP is being stolen .
Funny how everybody else is the pirate/bad guy/criminal/whatever but the logic never applies to them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A nice list of all of the same assholes that constantly whine about how their IP is being stolen.
Funny how everybody else is the pirate/bad guy/criminal/whatever but the logic never applies to them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30443248</id>
	<title>Re:How do I comply?</title>
	<author>anti-NAT</author>
	<datestamp>1260888360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Start by reading the GPL to find out what your obligations are.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Start by reading the GPL to find out what your obligations are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Start by reading the GPL to find out what your obligations are.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30441474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436644</id>
	<title>Re:Not such a great idea</title>
	<author>grcumb</author>
	<datestamp>1260790680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We don't want people embracing open source if by "embrace" they mean "take this free code, create my own product, and sell it".</p></div><p>No, you're dead wrong. The GPL allows <em>exactly</em> what you're describing.</p><p>It attaches a condition to that, though: It <em>also</em> says, <strong>'Anything you distribute has to be available in source form as well.'</strong> </p><p>It's bad enough that proprietary software apologists try constantly to conflate the terms 'proprietary' and 'commercial' without GPL supporters showing equal ignorance. Proprietary software has <em>exactly nothing</em> to do with whether it's commercial or not. GPL has <em>exactly nothing</em> to do with price.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We do n't want people embracing open source if by " embrace " they mean " take this free code , create my own product , and sell it " .No , you 're dead wrong .
The GPL allows exactly what you 're describing.It attaches a condition to that , though : It also says , 'Anything you distribute has to be available in source form as well .
' It 's bad enough that proprietary software apologists try constantly to conflate the terms 'proprietary ' and 'commercial ' without GPL supporters showing equal ignorance .
Proprietary software has exactly nothing to do with whether it 's commercial or not .
GPL has exactly nothing to do with price .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We don't want people embracing open source if by "embrace" they mean "take this free code, create my own product, and sell it".No, you're dead wrong.
The GPL allows exactly what you're describing.It attaches a condition to that, though: It also says, 'Anything you distribute has to be available in source form as well.
' It's bad enough that proprietary software apologists try constantly to conflate the terms 'proprietary' and 'commercial' without GPL supporters showing equal ignorance.
Proprietary software has exactly nothing to do with whether it's commercial or not.
GPL has exactly nothing to do with price.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436420</id>
	<title>Re:WDTV</title>
	<author>Aggrajag</author>
	<datestamp>1260789660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Western Digital Techonologies Inc. is listed as one of the defendants.<br>

Here's the pdf:<br>

<a href="http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2009/busybox-complaint-2009-12-14.pdf" title="softwarefreedom.org">http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2009/busybox-complaint-2009-12-14.pdf</a> [softwarefreedom.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Western Digital Techonologies Inc. is listed as one of the defendants .
Here 's the pdf : http : //www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2009/busybox-complaint-2009-12-14.pdf [ softwarefreedom.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Western Digital Techonologies Inc. is listed as one of the defendants.
Here's the pdf:

http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2009/busybox-complaint-2009-12-14.pdf [softwarefreedom.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436458</id>
	<title>Re:Not such a great idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260789780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They can't ignore GPL violations.  Otherwise, *everyone* will ignore the restrictions of the GPL license and use GPL'd software however they wish.  The entire point of the GPL is to use the strong protections offered by copyright law to the advantage of the Free software movement.  Without enforcement, the GPL has no teeth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They ca n't ignore GPL violations .
Otherwise , * everyone * will ignore the restrictions of the GPL license and use GPL 'd software however they wish .
The entire point of the GPL is to use the strong protections offered by copyright law to the advantage of the Free software movement .
Without enforcement , the GPL has no teeth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They can't ignore GPL violations.
Otherwise, *everyone* will ignore the restrictions of the GPL license and use GPL'd software however they wish.
The entire point of the GPL is to use the strong protections offered by copyright law to the advantage of the Free software movement.
Without enforcement, the GPL has no teeth.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30441646</id>
	<title>Emprex too</title>
	<author>naich</author>
	<datestamp>1260870420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I got one of their ME1 multimedia enclosures.  It's great, and uses Busybox.  I can't find the source code anywhere on their web site.</p><p><a href="http://www.emprex.com/03\_support\_02.php?pg\_no=10&amp;group=84&amp;kind=1" title="emprex.com">http://www.emprex.com/03\_support\_02.php?pg\_no=10&amp;group=84&amp;kind=1</a> [emprex.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I got one of their ME1 multimedia enclosures .
It 's great , and uses Busybox .
I ca n't find the source code anywhere on their web site.http : //www.emprex.com/03 \ _support \ _02.php ? pg \ _no = 10&amp;group = 84&amp;kind = 1 [ emprex.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I got one of their ME1 multimedia enclosures.
It's great, and uses Busybox.
I can't find the source code anywhere on their web site.http://www.emprex.com/03\_support\_02.php?pg\_no=10&amp;group=84&amp;kind=1 [emprex.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30443136</id>
	<title>Bull</title>
	<author>Kopachris</author>
	<datestamp>1260887580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Really.  I read the complaint, and it sounds pretty leak-proof, but don't you think they should be suing the manufacturers of the products, instead of the poor retail stores?  Because really&mdash;what could Best Buy do about this?  Not sell stuff?  No, the manufacturer should be made to include the GPL in the manual of the affected products, with a link to where one can download the source code.  I think that would be fair.

As it stands, though, I think they should go through with the lawsuit, and bring it to the attention of the public that Free Software (as in Freedom) is not something rare and unclean, but something that none of us could live without in modern life.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Really .
I read the complaint , and it sounds pretty leak-proof , but do n't you think they should be suing the manufacturers of the products , instead of the poor retail stores ?
Because really    what could Best Buy do about this ?
Not sell stuff ?
No , the manufacturer should be made to include the GPL in the manual of the affected products , with a link to where one can download the source code .
I think that would be fair .
As it stands , though , I think they should go through with the lawsuit , and bring it to the attention of the public that Free Software ( as in Freedom ) is not something rare and unclean , but something that none of us could live without in modern life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really.
I read the complaint, and it sounds pretty leak-proof, but don't you think they should be suing the manufacturers of the products, instead of the poor retail stores?
Because really—what could Best Buy do about this?
Not sell stuff?
No, the manufacturer should be made to include the GPL in the manual of the affected products, with a link to where one can download the source code.
I think that would be fair.
As it stands, though, I think they should go through with the lawsuit, and bring it to the attention of the public that Free Software (as in Freedom) is not something rare and unclean, but something that none of us could live without in modern life.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30437946</id>
	<title>Re:SFLC Sues 14 Companies for Copyright Violations</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260796860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If there were no copyright, we could then copy that program that included Linux 2.6.15, so what is your point. GPL is a workaround for copyright, if there were no copyright GPL wouldn't need to exist.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If there were no copyright , we could then copy that program that included Linux 2.6.15 , so what is your point .
GPL is a workaround for copyright , if there were no copyright GPL would n't need to exist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If there were no copyright, we could then copy that program that included Linux 2.6.15, so what is your point.
GPL is a workaround for copyright, if there were no copyright GPL wouldn't need to exist.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436922</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30437356</id>
	<title>Re:Not such a great idea</title>
	<author>interval1066</author>
	<datestamp>1260794400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We don't want people embracing open source if by "embrace" they mean "take this free code, create my own product, and sell it".</p></div><p>Why not, as long as any GPL'd source "goes back into the pool", as it were.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We do n't want people embracing open source if by " embrace " they mean " take this free code , create my own product , and sell it " .Why not , as long as any GPL 'd source " goes back into the pool " , as it were .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We don't want people embracing open source if by "embrace" they mean "take this free code, create my own product, and sell it".Why not, as long as any GPL'd source "goes back into the pool", as it were.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30442532</id>
	<title>Re:Credible arguments for short/no term of copyrig</title>
	<author>dylan\_-</author>
	<datestamp>1260881700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Can you point to serious refutations of copyright where the point of the argument is that copyright should last 2 years or not exist at all?</p></div> </blockquote><p>Well, I'm not sure how serious I am, but I'd like to see copyright abolished.</p><blockquote><div><p>No copyright means no end to the tyranny of proprietary software (said programs never enter the public domain even on paper),</p></div></blockquote><p>Well, I think the BSD folks would argue that free software would still exist. Don't most EULAs depend on copyright to enforce their terms too?</p><blockquote><div><p>no way for free software developers to require credit when building on their work (as some free software licenses require),</p></div></blockquote><p>Not so. An attribution law does not require a copyright law. We could have one without the other, if it was deemed necessary.</p><blockquote><div><p>and no reciprocal contribution to the commons when distributing or conveying the work or a derivative (like the GPL does).</p></div></blockquote><p>Again, there could be a separate non-copyright law covering this situation, but personally I'd rather we did without.</p><p>I'm a keen GPL supporter, but that's because it makes something useful out of the "evil" of copyright. I'd happily sacrifice the minor "good" to remove the major "evil".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can you point to serious refutations of copyright where the point of the argument is that copyright should last 2 years or not exist at all ?
Well , I 'm not sure how serious I am , but I 'd like to see copyright abolished.No copyright means no end to the tyranny of proprietary software ( said programs never enter the public domain even on paper ) ,Well , I think the BSD folks would argue that free software would still exist .
Do n't most EULAs depend on copyright to enforce their terms too ? no way for free software developers to require credit when building on their work ( as some free software licenses require ) ,Not so .
An attribution law does not require a copyright law .
We could have one without the other , if it was deemed necessary.and no reciprocal contribution to the commons when distributing or conveying the work or a derivative ( like the GPL does ) .Again , there could be a separate non-copyright law covering this situation , but personally I 'd rather we did without.I 'm a keen GPL supporter , but that 's because it makes something useful out of the " evil " of copyright .
I 'd happily sacrifice the minor " good " to remove the major " evil " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can you point to serious refutations of copyright where the point of the argument is that copyright should last 2 years or not exist at all?
Well, I'm not sure how serious I am, but I'd like to see copyright abolished.No copyright means no end to the tyranny of proprietary software (said programs never enter the public domain even on paper),Well, I think the BSD folks would argue that free software would still exist.
Don't most EULAs depend on copyright to enforce their terms too?no way for free software developers to require credit when building on their work (as some free software licenses require),Not so.
An attribution law does not require a copyright law.
We could have one without the other, if it was deemed necessary.and no reciprocal contribution to the commons when distributing or conveying the work or a derivative (like the GPL does).Again, there could be a separate non-copyright law covering this situation, but personally I'd rather we did without.I'm a keen GPL supporter, but that's because it makes something useful out of the "evil" of copyright.
I'd happily sacrifice the minor "good" to remove the major "evil".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30437704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436358</id>
	<title>Not such a great idea</title>
	<author>Megor1</author>
	<datestamp>1260789420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>On one hand the GPL violations are not so great...however action like this isn't going to encourage people to embrace open source...</htmltext>
<tokenext>On one hand the GPL violations are not so great...however action like this is n't going to encourage people to embrace open source.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On one hand the GPL violations are not so great...however action like this isn't going to encourage people to embrace open source...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30437486</id>
	<title>Re:Got an e-mail from the SFLC this morning</title>
	<author>Iphtashu Fitz</author>
	<datestamp>1260794880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Somehow I seriously doubt a judge or jury will accept the "well our Chinese OEM didn't give it to us" defense.</p><p>Just because you hire a Chinese company to develop a product for you doesn't mean you aren't required to ensure your product doesn't violate any laws or license agreements when you sell it here in the USA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Somehow I seriously doubt a judge or jury will accept the " well our Chinese OEM did n't give it to us " defense.Just because you hire a Chinese company to develop a product for you does n't mean you are n't required to ensure your product does n't violate any laws or license agreements when you sell it here in the USA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Somehow I seriously doubt a judge or jury will accept the "well our Chinese OEM didn't give it to us" defense.Just because you hire a Chinese company to develop a product for you doesn't mean you aren't required to ensure your product doesn't violate any laws or license agreements when you sell it here in the USA.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30443776</id>
	<title>Re:</title>
	<author>clint999</author>
	<datestamp>1260891000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You can charge whatever you want, that's your freedom.

Depending on the actual worth of the software and its demand, one of two things will happen:

If the total worth of your software (value to each user * total users in the market) is less than $2,000,000, then obviously no one will buy it and you will earn a total of $0.

If the total worth of your software is greater than $2,000,000, then someone will pay you $2,000,000 to obtain your binary and source and re-distribute both under GPL at a reasonab</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You can charge whatever you want , that 's your freedom .
Depending on the actual worth of the software and its demand , one of two things will happen : If the total worth of your software ( value to each user * total users in the market ) is less than $ 2,000,000 , then obviously no one will buy it and you will earn a total of $ 0 .
If the total worth of your software is greater than $ 2,000,000 , then someone will pay you $ 2,000,000 to obtain your binary and source and re-distribute both under GPL at a reasonab</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can charge whatever you want, that's your freedom.
Depending on the actual worth of the software and its demand, one of two things will happen:

If the total worth of your software (value to each user * total users in the market) is less than $2,000,000, then obviously no one will buy it and you will earn a total of $0.
If the total worth of your software is greater than $2,000,000, then someone will pay you $2,000,000 to obtain your binary and source and re-distribute both under GPL at a reasonab
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30438476</id>
	<title>Fix the moderation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260799320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously how does this shit get modded up?  And how is it still modded up after it falls flat on it's face for being wrong.  Iwsimon please stop posting if you don't know what you're talking about.  Please stick with windows is super comments as you don't understand what the point of free software is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously how does this shit get modded up ?
And how is it still modded up after it falls flat on it 's face for being wrong .
Iwsimon please stop posting if you do n't know what you 're talking about .
Please stick with windows is super comments as you do n't understand what the point of free software is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously how does this shit get modded up?
And how is it still modded up after it falls flat on it's face for being wrong.
Iwsimon please stop posting if you don't know what you're talking about.
Please stick with windows is super comments as you don't understand what the point of free software is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30437916</id>
	<title>Re:SFLC Sues 14 Companies for Copyright Violations</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260796740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If there were no copyright, or if copyright were limited to 2 years, then Linux 2.6.15 would be in the public domain by now and anyone could put it into any product they wanted without giving back to the people that created it.</p></div><p>Ah, you mean like BSD, Apache, and MIT code.  Your complaint being?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If there were no copyright , or if copyright were limited to 2 years , then Linux 2.6.15 would be in the public domain by now and anyone could put it into any product they wanted without giving back to the people that created it.Ah , you mean like BSD , Apache , and MIT code .
Your complaint being ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If there were no copyright, or if copyright were limited to 2 years, then Linux 2.6.15 would be in the public domain by now and anyone could put it into any product they wanted without giving back to the people that created it.Ah, you mean like BSD, Apache, and MIT code.
Your complaint being?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436922</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30444852</id>
	<title>Re:SFLC Sues 14 Companies for Copyright Violations</title>
	<author>Croakus</author>
	<datestamp>1260895680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I had exactly the same reaction.  By the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. way of thinking it's perfectly fine to take a copy of a song that took years of a person's life to write and tens of thousands of dollars to record and release in a professional manor.  Or how about downloading a movie that took years to write, employed hundreds of people during its creation and cost millions of dollars to make; that's fine too.  Because after all, IP law was "made up" by big companies so they could hoard money (I believe that's how it was explained to me right here on this very board).

But if you copy a chunk of software that two guys wrote in their basement over a long weekend, well by God we'll SEND IN THE DOGS OF WAR!

Gotta love hypocrisy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I had exactly the same reaction .
By the / .
way of thinking it 's perfectly fine to take a copy of a song that took years of a person 's life to write and tens of thousands of dollars to record and release in a professional manor .
Or how about downloading a movie that took years to write , employed hundreds of people during its creation and cost millions of dollars to make ; that 's fine too .
Because after all , IP law was " made up " by big companies so they could hoard money ( I believe that 's how it was explained to me right here on this very board ) .
But if you copy a chunk of software that two guys wrote in their basement over a long weekend , well by God we 'll SEND IN THE DOGS OF WAR !
Got ta love hypocrisy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had exactly the same reaction.
By the /.
way of thinking it's perfectly fine to take a copy of a song that took years of a person's life to write and tens of thousands of dollars to record and release in a professional manor.
Or how about downloading a movie that took years to write, employed hundreds of people during its creation and cost millions of dollars to make; that's fine too.
Because after all, IP law was "made up" by big companies so they could hoard money (I believe that's how it was explained to me right here on this very board).
But if you copy a chunk of software that two guys wrote in their basement over a long weekend, well by God we'll SEND IN THE DOGS OF WAR!
Gotta love hypocrisy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436922</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30442026</id>
	<title>Re:Use doesn't require meeting conditions.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260875040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, yes and no. If you only run th esoftware you need do nothing more, however:</p><p>From GPL v2</p><p>5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not<br>signed it.  However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or<br>distribute the Program or its derivative works.  These actions are<br>prohibited by law if you do not accept this License.  Therefore, by<br>modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the<br>Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and<br>all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying<br>the Program or works based on it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , yes and no .
If you only run th esoftware you need do nothing more , however : From GPL v25 .
You are not required to accept this License , since you have notsigned it .
However , nothing else grants you permission to modify ordistribute the Program or its derivative works .
These actions areprohibited by law if you do not accept this License .
Therefore , bymodifying or distributing the Program ( or any work based on theProgram ) , you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so , andall its terms and conditions for copying , distributing or modifyingthe Program or works based on it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, yes and no.
If you only run th esoftware you need do nothing more, however:From GPL v25.
You are not required to accept this License, since you have notsigned it.
However, nothing else grants you permission to modify ordistribute the Program or its derivative works.
These actions areprohibited by law if you do not accept this License.
Therefore, bymodifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on theProgram), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, andall its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifyingthe Program or works based on it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30437582</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30437758</id>
	<title>Re:Not such a great idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260796020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's bad enough that proprietary software apologists try constantly to conflate the terms 'proprietary' and 'commercial' without GPL supporters showing equal ignorance. Proprietary software has exactly nothing to do with whether it's commercial or not. GPL has exactly nothing to do with price.</p></div><p>Factually untrue, as any economist will tell you.  The licence you release under has a very large impact on the market price you can feasibly achieve, especially when you are seeding competing distributors with every sale.</p><p>99\% of GPL software projects have a market price of zero, are treated as having a market value of zero, and are sitting dead, abandoned, and inactive on sourceforge and various other places where unloved programs go to rot.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's bad enough that proprietary software apologists try constantly to conflate the terms 'proprietary ' and 'commercial ' without GPL supporters showing equal ignorance .
Proprietary software has exactly nothing to do with whether it 's commercial or not .
GPL has exactly nothing to do with price.Factually untrue , as any economist will tell you .
The licence you release under has a very large impact on the market price you can feasibly achieve , especially when you are seeding competing distributors with every sale.99 \ % of GPL software projects have a market price of zero , are treated as having a market value of zero , and are sitting dead , abandoned , and inactive on sourceforge and various other places where unloved programs go to rot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's bad enough that proprietary software apologists try constantly to conflate the terms 'proprietary' and 'commercial' without GPL supporters showing equal ignorance.
Proprietary software has exactly nothing to do with whether it's commercial or not.
GPL has exactly nothing to do with price.Factually untrue, as any economist will tell you.
The licence you release under has a very large impact on the market price you can feasibly achieve, especially when you are seeding competing distributors with every sale.99\% of GPL software projects have a market price of zero, are treated as having a market value of zero, and are sitting dead, abandoned, and inactive on sourceforge and various other places where unloved programs go to rot.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436644</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436730</id>
	<title>But who gets paid?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260791280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know much about this product, but in general...</p><p>If there is a community supported project then</p><p>a) Who gets to sue companies/people who violate the project's GPL or other open source license<br>b) Who gets paid should the lawsuit be successful<br>c) Who gets in debt should the lawsuit not be successful?<br>d) Who funds the lawsuit?<br>e) Doesn't the possibility exist for "open source trolls" who scour the world looking for GPL/Apache/BSD/whatever violations and sue the offender hoping to make a few dollars?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know much about this product , but in general...If there is a community supported project thena ) Who gets to sue companies/people who violate the project 's GPL or other open source licenseb ) Who gets paid should the lawsuit be successfulc ) Who gets in debt should the lawsuit not be successful ? d ) Who funds the lawsuit ? e ) Does n't the possibility exist for " open source trolls " who scour the world looking for GPL/Apache/BSD/whatever violations and sue the offender hoping to make a few dollars ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know much about this product, but in general...If there is a community supported project thena) Who gets to sue companies/people who violate the project's GPL or other open source licenseb) Who gets paid should the lawsuit be successfulc) Who gets in debt should the lawsuit not be successful?d) Who funds the lawsuit?e) Doesn't the possibility exist for "open source trolls" who scour the world looking for GPL/Apache/BSD/whatever violations and sue the offender hoping to make a few dollars?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30439364</id>
	<title>Re:Really - who owns the copyright?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260804300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"a copyright owner" does not mean "the only copyright owner", in fact the language seems quite precise to be stating that he is but one of the owners (which is all he needs to be to file suit for the part that is his).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" a copyright owner " does not mean " the only copyright owner " , in fact the language seems quite precise to be stating that he is but one of the owners ( which is all he needs to be to file suit for the part that is his ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"a copyright owner" does not mean "the only copyright owner", in fact the language seems quite precise to be stating that he is but one of the owners (which is all he needs to be to file suit for the part that is his).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30438036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436938</id>
	<title>Infringing devices</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260792300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's a list of [some of] the infringing devices from page 8 of the PDF:</p><ul><li>BestBuy's Insignia NS-WBRDVD Blu-ray Disc<br>Player</li><li>Samsung's LN52A650 and LA26A450 LCD HDTV's</li><li>Westinghouse's TX-52F480S LCD<br>HDTV</li><li>JVC's LT-42P789 LCD HDTV and VN-C20U IP Network Camera</li><li>Western Digital's<br>WDBABF0000NBK WD TV HD Media Player</li><li>Bosch's DVR4C Security System DVR</li><li>Phoebe Micro's Airlink101 AR670W and AR690W wireless routers and<br>Airlink101 AICAP650W IP Motion Wireless Camera</li><li>Humax's iCord HD HDTV DVR</li><li>Comtrend's CT-5621 and NexusLink 5631/ 5631E ADSL2+ bonded modems</li><li>Dobbs-Stanford's Frame Jazz EyeZone B1080P-2 digital media player</li><li>Versa Tech's PS-730 ITS Gateway and VX-BW2250 weatherproof dual<br>radio outdoor wireless access point</li><li>ZyXEL's P-663H-51 ADSL 2+ Bonded 4 Port Router</li><li>Astak's CM-818DVR4V security camera system with DVR and CM-04DE and CM-04DEV<br>security system DVR devices</li><li>and, GCI's Cortex HDC-3000 digital music controller</li></ul></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's a list of [ some of ] the infringing devices from page 8 of the PDF : BestBuy 's Insignia NS-WBRDVD Blu-ray DiscPlayerSamsung 's LN52A650 and LA26A450 LCD HDTV'sWestinghouse 's TX-52F480S LCDHDTVJVC 's LT-42P789 LCD HDTV and VN-C20U IP Network CameraWestern Digital'sWDBABF0000NBK WD TV HD Media PlayerBosch 's DVR4C Security System DVRPhoebe Micro 's Airlink101 AR670W and AR690W wireless routers andAirlink101 AICAP650W IP Motion Wireless CameraHumax 's iCord HD HDTV DVRComtrend 's CT-5621 and NexusLink 5631/ 5631E ADSL2 + bonded modemsDobbs-Stanford 's Frame Jazz EyeZone B1080P-2 digital media playerVersa Tech 's PS-730 ITS Gateway and VX-BW2250 weatherproof dualradio outdoor wireless access pointZyXEL 's P-663H-51 ADSL 2 + Bonded 4 Port RouterAstak 's CM-818DVR4V security camera system with DVR and CM-04DE and CM-04DEVsecurity system DVR devicesand , GCI 's Cortex HDC-3000 digital music controller</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's a list of [some of] the infringing devices from page 8 of the PDF:BestBuy's Insignia NS-WBRDVD Blu-ray DiscPlayerSamsung's LN52A650 and LA26A450 LCD HDTV'sWestinghouse's TX-52F480S LCDHDTVJVC's LT-42P789 LCD HDTV and VN-C20U IP Network CameraWestern Digital'sWDBABF0000NBK WD TV HD Media PlayerBosch's DVR4C Security System DVRPhoebe Micro's Airlink101 AR670W and AR690W wireless routers andAirlink101 AICAP650W IP Motion Wireless CameraHumax's iCord HD HDTV DVRComtrend's CT-5621 and NexusLink 5631/ 5631E ADSL2+ bonded modemsDobbs-Stanford's Frame Jazz EyeZone B1080P-2 digital media playerVersa Tech's PS-730 ITS Gateway and VX-BW2250 weatherproof dualradio outdoor wireless access pointZyXEL's P-663H-51 ADSL 2+ Bonded 4 Port RouterAstak's CM-818DVR4V security camera system with DVR and CM-04DE and CM-04DEVsecurity system DVR devicesand, GCI's Cortex HDC-3000 digital music controller</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30437582</id>
	<title>Use doesn't require meeting conditions.</title>
	<author>jbn-o</author>
	<datestamp>1260795240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That depends on what you mean by "use".  Typically people mean executing a program, running the software.  The terms of the GPLv2 (Busybox's license) do not compel one to do anything upon running the software.  And this quality is not unique to the GPL.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That depends on what you mean by " use " .
Typically people mean executing a program , running the software .
The terms of the GPLv2 ( Busybox 's license ) do not compel one to do anything upon running the software .
And this quality is not unique to the GPL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That depends on what you mean by "use".
Typically people mean executing a program, running the software.
The terms of the GPLv2 (Busybox's license) do not compel one to do anything upon running the software.
And this quality is not unique to the GPL.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30437874</id>
	<title>Re:Not such a great idea</title>
	<author>burnin1965</author>
	<datestamp>1260796560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>We don't want people embracing open source if by "embrace" they mean "take this free code, create my own product, and sell it".</p></div></blockquote><p>If by "We" you mean companies who license closed source proprietary software I guess you are absolutely correct.</p><p>There are many companies that use open source in their products that was licensed to them under the GPL as the open source method provides significant value beyond paying for a license to the closed source proprietary alternatives. Unfortunately for the closed source proprietary alternatives this means they have competition, I guess they'll just have to suck it up and compete in the free market.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We do n't want people embracing open source if by " embrace " they mean " take this free code , create my own product , and sell it " .If by " We " you mean companies who license closed source proprietary software I guess you are absolutely correct.There are many companies that use open source in their products that was licensed to them under the GPL as the open source method provides significant value beyond paying for a license to the closed source proprietary alternatives .
Unfortunately for the closed source proprietary alternatives this means they have competition , I guess they 'll just have to suck it up and compete in the free market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We don't want people embracing open source if by "embrace" they mean "take this free code, create my own product, and sell it".If by "We" you mean companies who license closed source proprietary software I guess you are absolutely correct.There are many companies that use open source in their products that was licensed to them under the GPL as the open source method provides significant value beyond paying for a license to the closed source proprietary alternatives.
Unfortunately for the closed source proprietary alternatives this means they have competition, I guess they'll just have to suck it up and compete in the free market.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30438146</id>
	<title>Re:SFLC Sues 14 Companies for Copyright Violations</title>
	<author>aztracker1</author>
	<datestamp>1260797700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Personally, I wouldn't mind even a 20 year copyright.  I'm against software patents, as imho there's nothing non-obvious, original or unique in software for the past 20 years, just the same *IF* software patents are to continue, a 5 year limitation is probably appropriate there.  I won't even get into Trademark abuse though.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally , I would n't mind even a 20 year copyright .
I 'm against software patents , as imho there 's nothing non-obvious , original or unique in software for the past 20 years , just the same * IF * software patents are to continue , a 5 year limitation is probably appropriate there .
I wo n't even get into Trademark abuse though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally, I wouldn't mind even a 20 year copyright.
I'm against software patents, as imho there's nothing non-obvious, original or unique in software for the past 20 years, just the same *IF* software patents are to continue, a 5 year limitation is probably appropriate there.
I won't even get into Trademark abuse though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436922</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30438204</id>
	<title>Re:But who gets paid?</title>
	<author>burnin1965</author>
	<datestamp>1260798060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>e) Doesn't the possibility exist for "open source trolls" who scour the world looking for GPL/Apache/BSD/whatever violations and sue the offender hoping to make a few dollars?</p></div></blockquote><p>No.</p><p>Open source software is acquired through some method of distribution, that is a good portion of what the licensing covers.</p><p>You don't develop your own software and have some troll come along and take you to court for having the concept of their open source software that may or may not exist included in your code. If you are in violation of the open source license that made the code available to you its because you put it there.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>e ) Does n't the possibility exist for " open source trolls " who scour the world looking for GPL/Apache/BSD/whatever violations and sue the offender hoping to make a few dollars ? No.Open source software is acquired through some method of distribution , that is a good portion of what the licensing covers.You do n't develop your own software and have some troll come along and take you to court for having the concept of their open source software that may or may not exist included in your code .
If you are in violation of the open source license that made the code available to you its because you put it there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>e) Doesn't the possibility exist for "open source trolls" who scour the world looking for GPL/Apache/BSD/whatever violations and sue the offender hoping to make a few dollars?No.Open source software is acquired through some method of distribution, that is a good portion of what the licensing covers.You don't develop your own software and have some troll come along and take you to court for having the concept of their open source software that may or may not exist included in your code.
If you are in violation of the open source license that made the code available to you its because you put it there.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30440328</id>
	<title>Re:But who gets paid?</title>
	<author>reub2000</author>
	<datestamp>1260811800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>From TFA:
"The suit was filed on behalf of the Software Freedom Conservancy (Conservancy), [...] and Erik Andersen, one of the program's principal developers and copyright holders."</htmltext>
<tokenext>From TFA : " The suit was filed on behalf of the Software Freedom Conservancy ( Conservancy ) , [ ... ] and Erik Andersen , one of the program 's principal developers and copyright holders .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From TFA:
"The suit was filed on behalf of the Software Freedom Conservancy (Conservancy), [...] and Erik Andersen, one of the program's principal developers and copyright holders.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30442726</id>
	<title>Re:Use doesn't require meeting conditions.</title>
	<author>Bacon Bits</author>
	<datestamp>1260883920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Use in a commercial product more or less necessitates distribution, which is exactly the kind of "use" the GPL applies to and exactly the kind of "use" these companies have done.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Use in a commercial product more or less necessitates distribution , which is exactly the kind of " use " the GPL applies to and exactly the kind of " use " these companies have done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Use in a commercial product more or less necessitates distribution, which is exactly the kind of "use" the GPL applies to and exactly the kind of "use" these companies have done.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30437582</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30438174</id>
	<title>Re:Really - who owns the copyright?</title>
	<author>NiteMair</author>
	<datestamp>1260797940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It appears Erik Andersen is responsible for a large amount of rewritten core apps in BusyBox:</p><p><a href="http://git.busybox.net/busybox/tree/AUTHORS" title="busybox.net">http://git.busybox.net/busybox/tree/AUTHORS</a> [busybox.net]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It appears Erik Andersen is responsible for a large amount of rewritten core apps in BusyBox : http : //git.busybox.net/busybox/tree/AUTHORS [ busybox.net ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It appears Erik Andersen is responsible for a large amount of rewritten core apps in BusyBox:http://git.busybox.net/busybox/tree/AUTHORS [busybox.net]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30438036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30439074</id>
	<title>Re:Not such a great idea</title>
	<author>pantherace</author>
	<datestamp>1260802500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, use it all you want. Just don't distribute it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , use it all you want .
Just do n't distribute it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, use it all you want.
Just don't distribute it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30437144</id>
	<title>Re:SFLC Sues 14 Companies for Copyright Violations</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260793320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If there were no copyright, or if copyright were limited to 2 years, then Linux 2.6.15 would be in the public domain by now and anyone could put it into any product they wanted without giving back to the people that created it.</p></div></blockquote><p>I'd take that trade happily.  I don't think it'd harm Linux in the slightest, to be honest with you -- there are any number of open source projects out there that aren't GPL and are thriving nevertheless.  Might even help Linux if it meant we could legally decompile and reverse-engineer other peoples' stuff that's out there past the 2 year mark.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If there were no copyright , or if copyright were limited to 2 years , then Linux 2.6.15 would be in the public domain by now and anyone could put it into any product they wanted without giving back to the people that created it.I 'd take that trade happily .
I do n't think it 'd harm Linux in the slightest , to be honest with you -- there are any number of open source projects out there that are n't GPL and are thriving nevertheless .
Might even help Linux if it meant we could legally decompile and reverse-engineer other peoples ' stuff that 's out there past the 2 year mark .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If there were no copyright, or if copyright were limited to 2 years, then Linux 2.6.15 would be in the public domain by now and anyone could put it into any product they wanted without giving back to the people that created it.I'd take that trade happily.
I don't think it'd harm Linux in the slightest, to be honest with you -- there are any number of open source projects out there that aren't GPL and are thriving nevertheless.
Might even help Linux if it meant we could legally decompile and reverse-engineer other peoples' stuff that's out there past the 2 year mark.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436922</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436430</id>
	<title>Re:Not such a great idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260789660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Without the litigation, you lose the purpose of the GPL, though.</p><p>We don't want people embracing open source if by "embrace" they mean "take this free code, create my own product, and sell it".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Without the litigation , you lose the purpose of the GPL , though.We do n't want people embracing open source if by " embrace " they mean " take this free code , create my own product , and sell it " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Without the litigation, you lose the purpose of the GPL, though.We don't want people embracing open source if by "embrace" they mean "take this free code, create my own product, and sell it".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30440130</id>
	<title>SFLC lawyers have the world's worst signature</title>
	<author>Dan B.</author>
	<datestamp>1260809940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously, open the PDF and go to page 12.</p><p>Whoever signed that obviously doesn't have a chequebook or a credit card!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , open the PDF and go to page 12.Whoever signed that obviously does n't have a chequebook or a credit card !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, open the PDF and go to page 12.Whoever signed that obviously doesn't have a chequebook or a credit card!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30437456</id>
	<title>Re:SFLC Sues 14 Companies for Copyright Violations</title>
	<author>Enleth</author>
	<datestamp>1260794760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>he point remains, however: all the pirate supporters on this website don't like it when you shove their arguments back in their face.</p> </div><p>Slashdot user base is big.</p><p>Didn't it occur to you that these might be completely different individuals?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>he point remains , however : all the pirate supporters on this website do n't like it when you shove their arguments back in their face .
Slashdot user base is big.Did n't it occur to you that these might be completely different individuals ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>he point remains, however: all the pirate supporters on this website don't like it when you shove their arguments back in their face.
Slashdot user base is big.Didn't it occur to you that these might be completely different individuals?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436922</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30442004</id>
	<title>List of the 14 companies :</title>
	<author>inkhorn</author>
	<datestamp>1260874800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Best Buy<br>Samsung Electronics America<br>Westinghouse Digital Electronics<br>JVC Americas Corporation<br>Western Digital Technologies<br>Robert Bosch<br>Phoebe Micro<br>Humax USA<br>Comtrend Corporation<br>Dobbs-Stanford Corporation<br>Versa Technology<br>Zyxel Communications<br>Astak<br>GCI Technologies Corporation</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Best BuySamsung Electronics AmericaWestinghouse Digital ElectronicsJVC Americas CorporationWestern Digital TechnologiesRobert BoschPhoebe MicroHumax USAComtrend CorporationDobbs-Stanford CorporationVersa TechnologyZyxel CommunicationsAstakGCI Technologies Corporation</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Best BuySamsung Electronics AmericaWestinghouse Digital ElectronicsJVC Americas CorporationWestern Digital TechnologiesRobert BoschPhoebe MicroHumax USAComtrend CorporationDobbs-Stanford CorporationVersa TechnologyZyxel CommunicationsAstakGCI Technologies Corporation</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30437568</id>
	<title>Re:But who gets paid?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260795240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Answer: The copyright holder(s).  That is, the name of the person or people who wrote the lines of code.  Even in a community project, someone still wrote each line of code.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Answer : The copyright holder ( s ) .
That is , the name of the person or people who wrote the lines of code .
Even in a community project , someone still wrote each line of code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Answer: The copyright holder(s).
That is, the name of the person or people who wrote the lines of code.
Even in a community project, someone still wrote each line of code.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30443772</id>
	<title>Re:How do I comply?</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1260891000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>First, you are doing it wrong.  The time to ask how you comply with a license to a piece of software is <i>before</i> you use it, not after.  Second, compliance should be pretty easy for you.  The simplest way is to just pop a copy of the Linux and BusyBox sources on a CD that you include with the device.  You can alternatively accompany the device with a written offer of the source, but it's probably cheaper just to burn a CD.  It will add a few dollars to your costs, which is likely insignificant for a 5-digit sale price.</htmltext>
<tokenext>First , you are doing it wrong .
The time to ask how you comply with a license to a piece of software is before you use it , not after .
Second , compliance should be pretty easy for you .
The simplest way is to just pop a copy of the Linux and BusyBox sources on a CD that you include with the device .
You can alternatively accompany the device with a written offer of the source , but it 's probably cheaper just to burn a CD .
It will add a few dollars to your costs , which is likely insignificant for a 5-digit sale price .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First, you are doing it wrong.
The time to ask how you comply with a license to a piece of software is before you use it, not after.
Second, compliance should be pretty easy for you.
The simplest way is to just pop a copy of the Linux and BusyBox sources on a CD that you include with the device.
You can alternatively accompany the device with a written offer of the source, but it's probably cheaper just to burn a CD.
It will add a few dollars to your costs, which is likely insignificant for a 5-digit sale price.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30441474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30437162</id>
	<title>Speak for yourself, white man.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260793380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The point remains, however: all the pirate supporters on this website don't like it when you shove their arguments back in their face.</i></p><p>Which pirate supporters are you referring to?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The point remains , however : all the pirate supporters on this website do n't like it when you shove their arguments back in their face.Which pirate supporters are you referring to ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The point remains, however: all the pirate supporters on this website don't like it when you shove their arguments back in their face.Which pirate supporters are you referring to?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436922</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436426</id>
	<title>Re:Not such a great idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260789660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you sure these companies "embrace" open source? sounds to me like they really just raped it...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you sure these companies " embrace " open source ?
sounds to me like they really just raped it.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you sure these companies "embrace" open source?
sounds to me like they really just raped it...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436926</id>
	<title>How to fix the situation:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260792180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't buy products made in China.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't buy products made in China .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't buy products made in China.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30437570</id>
	<title>Re:SFLC Sues 14 Companies for Copyright Violations</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1260795240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except a large number of pirate supporters support limited copyright for commercial applications only. It's a perfectly reasonable solution: Hollywood could still make $800 million box office sales with a monopoly on movie theater viewing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except a large number of pirate supporters support limited copyright for commercial applications only .
It 's a perfectly reasonable solution : Hollywood could still make $ 800 million box office sales with a monopoly on movie theater viewing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except a large number of pirate supporters support limited copyright for commercial applications only.
It's a perfectly reasonable solution: Hollywood could still make $800 million box office sales with a monopoly on movie theater viewing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436922</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30437984</id>
	<title>Re:But who gets paid?</title>
	<author>bcmm</author>
	<datestamp>1260796980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>IANAL.<br>
<br>
a) Any author of part of the software gets to sue (unless they had to assign copyright to the project*). In short, whoever owns the rights to the work! It's just copyright. The SFLC often gets asked to help by the people who's work has been stolen. I do not believe the poster above me who says that anyone can claim to own it.<br>
b) In the past, the end result has been future compliance, and various "undisclosed contributions" to projects (no idea how you keep the amount of a donation to an open-source project a secret).<br>
c) I Don't think the good guys have lost yet, but I guess SFLC would be out the (donated, I think) money it funds the lawsuits with.<br>
d) SFLC funds the lawsuit (that's part of its purpose); they have a fund including $4 million from OSDL.<br>
e) Trolls would have to get code accepted into the project to have a case, and then wait a bit and hope the violators upgrade to the latest version. That, or contribute to lots of projects in the hope someone infringes one of them (I'm not sure the community would mind). I doubt the SFLC would help a random small contributor, and as mentioned above, past SFLC lawsuits have resulted in contributions to the project involved, not payoffs of individuals.
<br> <br>*Having individual contributors keep the copyright is a great safeguard against a project leader taking a project closed-source. It is, however, also why Linux can't switch to GPLv3 even if it wants to.</htmltext>
<tokenext>IANAL .
a ) Any author of part of the software gets to sue ( unless they had to assign copyright to the project * ) .
In short , whoever owns the rights to the work !
It 's just copyright .
The SFLC often gets asked to help by the people who 's work has been stolen .
I do not believe the poster above me who says that anyone can claim to own it .
b ) In the past , the end result has been future compliance , and various " undisclosed contributions " to projects ( no idea how you keep the amount of a donation to an open-source project a secret ) .
c ) I Do n't think the good guys have lost yet , but I guess SFLC would be out the ( donated , I think ) money it funds the lawsuits with .
d ) SFLC funds the lawsuit ( that 's part of its purpose ) ; they have a fund including $ 4 million from OSDL .
e ) Trolls would have to get code accepted into the project to have a case , and then wait a bit and hope the violators upgrade to the latest version .
That , or contribute to lots of projects in the hope someone infringes one of them ( I 'm not sure the community would mind ) .
I doubt the SFLC would help a random small contributor , and as mentioned above , past SFLC lawsuits have resulted in contributions to the project involved , not payoffs of individuals .
* Having individual contributors keep the copyright is a great safeguard against a project leader taking a project closed-source .
It is , however , also why Linux ca n't switch to GPLv3 even if it wants to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IANAL.
a) Any author of part of the software gets to sue (unless they had to assign copyright to the project*).
In short, whoever owns the rights to the work!
It's just copyright.
The SFLC often gets asked to help by the people who's work has been stolen.
I do not believe the poster above me who says that anyone can claim to own it.
b) In the past, the end result has been future compliance, and various "undisclosed contributions" to projects (no idea how you keep the amount of a donation to an open-source project a secret).
c) I Don't think the good guys have lost yet, but I guess SFLC would be out the (donated, I think) money it funds the lawsuits with.
d) SFLC funds the lawsuit (that's part of its purpose); they have a fund including $4 million from OSDL.
e) Trolls would have to get code accepted into the project to have a case, and then wait a bit and hope the violators upgrade to the latest version.
That, or contribute to lots of projects in the hope someone infringes one of them (I'm not sure the community would mind).
I doubt the SFLC would help a random small contributor, and as mentioned above, past SFLC lawsuits have resulted in contributions to the project involved, not payoffs of individuals.
*Having individual contributors keep the copyright is a great safeguard against a project leader taking a project closed-source.
It is, however, also why Linux can't switch to GPLv3 even if it wants to.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30437674</id>
	<title>Re:I finally understand!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260795660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, if the company had followed the rules, then either a) the company would have paid the author some money for a closed-license version of the source so they could incorporate it into their product without releasing the source, or b) the company would have had to release their changes, which could then be merged back into the project (not directly money, but programmer time is a resource with non-zero value). Or c) the company made no changes to the GPLed code but wouldn't redistribute the source even after they were warned because they're a bunch of idiots, in which case this represents the idiot tax.</p><p>I don't see what's so hard to understand.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , if the company had followed the rules , then either a ) the company would have paid the author some money for a closed-license version of the source so they could incorporate it into their product without releasing the source , or b ) the company would have had to release their changes , which could then be merged back into the project ( not directly money , but programmer time is a resource with non-zero value ) .
Or c ) the company made no changes to the GPLed code but would n't redistribute the source even after they were warned because they 're a bunch of idiots , in which case this represents the idiot tax.I do n't see what 's so hard to understand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, if the company had followed the rules, then either a) the company would have paid the author some money for a closed-license version of the source so they could incorporate it into their product without releasing the source, or b) the company would have had to release their changes, which could then be merged back into the project (not directly money, but programmer time is a resource with non-zero value).
Or c) the company made no changes to the GPLed code but wouldn't redistribute the source even after they were warned because they're a bunch of idiots, in which case this represents the idiot tax.I don't see what's so hard to understand.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30437256</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436738</id>
	<title>Got an e-mail from the SFLC this morning</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260791400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A little over two years ago, I discovered that my VersaTek modem was using Linux/BusyBox. I requested the source, and the company refused saying that their Chinese OEM didn't give it to them, so that they couldn't give it to me. This is, of course, still a violation of the GPL in the same way that selling a stolen stereo doesn't change the fact that the stereo is stolen.</p><p>I mailed a report of this to the BusyBox author, and this morning the SFLC sent me an e-mail letting me know that VersaTek was being included in this lawsuit. They don't mention the specific VersaTek product that I notified them about, but it's nice that they followed up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A little over two years ago , I discovered that my VersaTek modem was using Linux/BusyBox .
I requested the source , and the company refused saying that their Chinese OEM did n't give it to them , so that they could n't give it to me .
This is , of course , still a violation of the GPL in the same way that selling a stolen stereo does n't change the fact that the stereo is stolen.I mailed a report of this to the BusyBox author , and this morning the SFLC sent me an e-mail letting me know that VersaTek was being included in this lawsuit .
They do n't mention the specific VersaTek product that I notified them about , but it 's nice that they followed up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A little over two years ago, I discovered that my VersaTek modem was using Linux/BusyBox.
I requested the source, and the company refused saying that their Chinese OEM didn't give it to them, so that they couldn't give it to me.
This is, of course, still a violation of the GPL in the same way that selling a stolen stereo doesn't change the fact that the stereo is stolen.I mailed a report of this to the BusyBox author, and this morning the SFLC sent me an e-mail letting me know that VersaTek was being included in this lawsuit.
They don't mention the specific VersaTek product that I notified them about, but it's nice that they followed up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436484</id>
	<title>Re:Not such a great idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260789900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you don't agree with the license, don't use GPL'd software.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you do n't agree with the license , do n't use GPL 'd software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you don't agree with the license, don't use GPL'd software.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30440888</id>
	<title>Re:I finally understand!!!</title>
	<author>Tuoqui</author>
	<datestamp>1260816900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>About the same as the piracy figures the BSA would come up with... In theory.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>About the same as the piracy figures the BSA would come up with... In theory .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>About the same as the piracy figures the BSA would come up with... In theory.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30437256</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_210207_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_210207_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436330
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_210207_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30437162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436922
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_210207_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_210207_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30437570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436922
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_210207_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30437626
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30437256
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_210207_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30440328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436730
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_210207_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30437984
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436730
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_210207_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30440888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30437256
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_210207_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30439364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30438036
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_210207_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30437964
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_210207_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30438204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436730
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_210207_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_210207_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30443772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30441474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_210207_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30437916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436922
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_210207_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30442026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30437582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_210207_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30437674
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30437256
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_210207_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30437982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436922
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_210207_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30437456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436922
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_210207_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30440724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436738
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_210207_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30441550
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30437586
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_210207_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30437568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436730
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_210207_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30437874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_210207_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30438174
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30438036
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_210207_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30441662
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30441474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_210207_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30438476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_210207_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30437486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436738
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_210207_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30437686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436922
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_210207_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30442726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30437582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_210207_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30437946
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436922
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_210207_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_210207_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30441384
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436922
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_210207_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30450772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30441474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_210207_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_210207_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30437144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436922
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_210207_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30450676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30437586
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_210207_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30439074
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_210207_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30444852
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436922
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_210207_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30442532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30437704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436922
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_210207_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30442526
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30440938
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_210207_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30437350
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436922
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_210207_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30437356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_210207_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_210207_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30437748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436922
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_210207_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30450410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30437636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436730
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_210207_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30438146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436922
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_210207_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30443248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30441474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_210207_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30437758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_210207.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436330
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436420
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_210207.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30442068
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_210207.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436922
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30437570
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30437162
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30437686
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30437748
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30437946
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30441384
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30437456
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30437704
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30442532
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30444852
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30438146
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30437982
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30437350
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30437916
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30437144
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_210207.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30437256
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30440888
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30437626
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30437674
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_210207.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436358
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436430
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30438476
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30437874
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436644
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30437964
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30437758
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30437356
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436460
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436474
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436448
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436446
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436484
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30437582
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30442726
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30442026
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30439074
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436458
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436426
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_210207.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30438036
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30438174
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30439364
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_210207.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30441474
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30441662
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30443248
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30450772
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30443772
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_210207.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436738
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30437486
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30440724
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_210207.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30437586
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30441550
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30450676
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_210207.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30436730
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30438204
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30437568
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30440328
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30437636
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30450410
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30437984
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_210207.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30440938
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30442526
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_210207.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_210207.30438994
</commentlist>
</conversation>
