<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_15_1925257</id>
	<title>Busybox Developer Responds To Andersen-SFLC Lawsuits</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1260864780000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="mailto:bruceNO@SPAMperens.com" rel="nofollow">Bruce Perens</a> writes <i>"I'm the creator of the Busybox program. I have released a <a href="http://perens.com/blog/2009/12/15/23/">statement on the past and current Busybox lawsuits</a>, which do not represent my interest."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bruce Perens writes " I 'm the creator of the Busybox program .
I have released a statement on the past and current Busybox lawsuits , which do not represent my interest .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bruce Perens writes "I'm the creator of the Busybox program.
I have released a statement on the past and current Busybox lawsuits, which do not represent my interest.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449614</id>
	<title>Backing Bruce's Copyright</title>
	<author>Diesel Dave</author>
	<datestamp>1260870900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am the one that handed BusyBox over to Anderson after maintaining it for 2 years.</p><p>I believe I worked with Busybox longer then Bruce  did and during my time I reorganized the code, but <b>still consider Bruce</b> the primary root Copyright holder and license grantor. Anderson is claiming complete Copyright and that is simply an impossibility. As far as I am concerned, this claim is a GPL violation in and of itself.</p><p>Even if every line of code Bruce or myself wrote were replaced, it was done so on his and subsequently my license terms which are the GPL. My privileges and Anderson's privileges (if any ?) to alter and redistribute Bruce's work are based on those license terms derived from Bruce's initial publication and you can not simply 'code them away' unless you start from scratch.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am the one that handed BusyBox over to Anderson after maintaining it for 2 years.I believe I worked with Busybox longer then Bruce did and during my time I reorganized the code , but still consider Bruce the primary root Copyright holder and license grantor .
Anderson is claiming complete Copyright and that is simply an impossibility .
As far as I am concerned , this claim is a GPL violation in and of itself.Even if every line of code Bruce or myself wrote were replaced , it was done so on his and subsequently my license terms which are the GPL .
My privileges and Anderson 's privileges ( if any ?
) to alter and redistribute Bruce 's work are based on those license terms derived from Bruce 's initial publication and you can not simply 'code them away ' unless you start from scratch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am the one that handed BusyBox over to Anderson after maintaining it for 2 years.I believe I worked with Busybox longer then Bruce  did and during my time I reorganized the code, but still consider Bruce the primary root Copyright holder and license grantor.
Anderson is claiming complete Copyright and that is simply an impossibility.
As far as I am concerned, this claim is a GPL violation in and of itself.Even if every line of code Bruce or myself wrote were replaced, it was done so on his and subsequently my license terms which are the GPL.
My privileges and Anderson's privileges (if any ?
) to alter and redistribute Bruce's work are based on those license terms derived from Bruce's initial publication and you can not simply 'code them away' unless you start from scratch.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30450384</id>
	<title>Re:it doesn't matter</title>
	<author>TexasTroy</author>
	<datestamp>1260873900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>If I understand this correctly, all one needs to do is get one change into the source and they have standing to bring a lawsuit against any company not in compliance.  From what I read in Wikipedia, these guys have already received undisclosed amounts in previous settlements.

That could get interesting - some minor developer suing and getting paid for the work a majority of others have performed.  What standing do the other developers have for getting a cut of any settlement?</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I understand this correctly , all one needs to do is get one change into the source and they have standing to bring a lawsuit against any company not in compliance .
From what I read in Wikipedia , these guys have already received undisclosed amounts in previous settlements .
That could get interesting - some minor developer suing and getting paid for the work a majority of others have performed .
What standing do the other developers have for getting a cut of any settlement ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I understand this correctly, all one needs to do is get one change into the source and they have standing to bring a lawsuit against any company not in compliance.
From what I read in Wikipedia, these guys have already received undisclosed amounts in previous settlements.
That could get interesting - some minor developer suing and getting paid for the work a majority of others have performed.
What standing do the other developers have for getting a cut of any settlement?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449508</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30455014</id>
	<title>Re:Microsft loves GPL Lawsuits</title>
	<author>Engeekneer</author>
	<datestamp>1259660160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wouldn't say that this is any proof that GPL shouldn't be used. Yes, in long running bigger projects, who holds the code copyright can of course become an issue, but this also means that contributions to the code muse be respected. This is actually more acout copyright than license. There would be the same problems in a hypothetical multi-developer closed source code. It would just be harder to verify if the source and the contributions aren't available. It's just that closed source code is usually run by companies, which own the copyright of the code their coders produce.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would n't say that this is any proof that GPL should n't be used .
Yes , in long running bigger projects , who holds the code copyright can of course become an issue , but this also means that contributions to the code muse be respected .
This is actually more acout copyright than license .
There would be the same problems in a hypothetical multi-developer closed source code .
It would just be harder to verify if the source and the contributions are n't available .
It 's just that closed source code is usually run by companies , which own the copyright of the code their coders produce .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wouldn't say that this is any proof that GPL shouldn't be used.
Yes, in long running bigger projects, who holds the code copyright can of course become an issue, but this also means that contributions to the code muse be respected.
This is actually more acout copyright than license.
There would be the same problems in a hypothetical multi-developer closed source code.
It would just be harder to verify if the source and the contributions aren't available.
It's just that closed source code is usually run by companies, which own the copyright of the code their coders produce.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30453748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30453142</id>
	<title>Re:Backing Bruce's Copyright</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260889380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Surely what you're saying here is that the Linux kernel is not only very difficult to relicence but downright impossible.  The idea that recoding areas of code which were written by those that have either "dropped off the net" or just plain died is pointless...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Surely what you 're saying here is that the Linux kernel is not only very difficult to relicence but downright impossible .
The idea that recoding areas of code which were written by those that have either " dropped off the net " or just plain died is pointless.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Surely what you're saying here is that the Linux kernel is not only very difficult to relicence but downright impossible.
The idea that recoding areas of code which were written by those that have either "dropped off the net" or just plain died is pointless...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449614</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30450432</id>
	<title>Re:Backing Bruce's Copyright</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260874080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, no.  If, over time, one person's contribution to a GPL code base is completely replaced with contributions by other people, that person no longer has any copyright interest in the code base, and therefore no say over how the current code base is licensed.  In fact, if I were to completely re-code a GPL code base such that it contained *only* code originally written by me, I would be able to license that code however I liked.  (That's not terribly likely for any actively developed project though.)  What stops that from happening in practice, is the effort needed to do this is greater than the effort needed to write something from scratch, or simply comply with the license terms in the first place.</p><p>That's neither here nor there though.  Unless Bruce is the *only* copyright owner for Busybox, he can't prevent the other contributors from suing for copyright violation when they believe the license has been violated.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , no .
If , over time , one person 's contribution to a GPL code base is completely replaced with contributions by other people , that person no longer has any copyright interest in the code base , and therefore no say over how the current code base is licensed .
In fact , if I were to completely re-code a GPL code base such that it contained * only * code originally written by me , I would be able to license that code however I liked .
( That 's not terribly likely for any actively developed project though .
) What stops that from happening in practice , is the effort needed to do this is greater than the effort needed to write something from scratch , or simply comply with the license terms in the first place.That 's neither here nor there though .
Unless Bruce is the * only * copyright owner for Busybox , he ca n't prevent the other contributors from suing for copyright violation when they believe the license has been violated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, no.
If, over time, one person's contribution to a GPL code base is completely replaced with contributions by other people, that person no longer has any copyright interest in the code base, and therefore no say over how the current code base is licensed.
In fact, if I were to completely re-code a GPL code base such that it contained *only* code originally written by me, I would be able to license that code however I liked.
(That's not terribly likely for any actively developed project though.
)  What stops that from happening in practice, is the effort needed to do this is greater than the effort needed to write something from scratch, or simply comply with the license terms in the first place.That's neither here nor there though.
Unless Bruce is the *only* copyright owner for Busybox, he can't prevent the other contributors from suing for copyright violation when they believe the license has been violated.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449614</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30450222</id>
	<title>Re:Backing Bruce's Copyright</title>
	<author>bzzfzz</author>
	<datestamp>1260873300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is not governed by the GPL but rather by case law regarding what does and does not constitute a "derived work."  Case law in this area is vague, contradictory, and evolving.  Litigation in this area tends to be expensive and unpredictable.</p><p>The claim of ongoing copyright "even if every line of code<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... were replaced" is one of the major arguments SCO is making.  I don't it's a valid argument and I certainly hope that the courts don't find it to be valid.</p><p>Finally, copyright law does not require registrants to identify the new creative contribution when registering a work derived from a prior work (whether PD or copyrighted).  By registering copyright, a necessary step prior to pursuing infringement claims, Anderson does "not claim complete Copyright."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is not governed by the GPL but rather by case law regarding what does and does not constitute a " derived work .
" Case law in this area is vague , contradictory , and evolving .
Litigation in this area tends to be expensive and unpredictable.The claim of ongoing copyright " even if every line of code ... were replaced " is one of the major arguments SCO is making .
I do n't it 's a valid argument and I certainly hope that the courts do n't find it to be valid.Finally , copyright law does not require registrants to identify the new creative contribution when registering a work derived from a prior work ( whether PD or copyrighted ) .
By registering copyright , a necessary step prior to pursuing infringement claims , Anderson does " not claim complete Copyright .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is not governed by the GPL but rather by case law regarding what does and does not constitute a "derived work.
"  Case law in this area is vague, contradictory, and evolving.
Litigation in this area tends to be expensive and unpredictable.The claim of ongoing copyright "even if every line of code ... were replaced" is one of the major arguments SCO is making.
I don't it's a valid argument and I certainly hope that the courts don't find it to be valid.Finally, copyright law does not require registrants to identify the new creative contribution when registering a work derived from a prior work (whether PD or copyrighted).
By registering copyright, a necessary step prior to pursuing infringement claims, Anderson does "not claim complete Copyright.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449614</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449388</id>
	<title>Slashdot:  Stuff that matters...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260869880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...to Bruce Perens.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...to Bruce Perens .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...to Bruce Perens.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30451626</id>
	<title>Easy retroactive solution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260879420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And perhaps a warning to developers anywhere that want to someday make money off of their products:</p><p>*Don't use the GPL* or anything remotely related.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And perhaps a warning to developers anywhere that want to someday make money off of their products : * Do n't use the GPL * or anything remotely related .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And perhaps a warning to developers anywhere that want to someday make money off of their products:*Don't use the GPL* or anything remotely related.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30450348</id>
	<title>Finally</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260873780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am so happy to see the arguments of the "free" software community.  As they collectively attack the big proprietary software producers; then squabble in the closet about who contributed more and how someone else "stole" what they "gave away"....JUICY</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am so happy to see the arguments of the " free " software community .
As they collectively attack the big proprietary software producers ; then squabble in the closet about who contributed more and how someone else " stole " what they " gave away " ....JUICY</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am so happy to see the arguments of the "free" software community.
As they collectively attack the big proprietary software producers; then squabble in the closet about who contributed more and how someone else "stole" what they "gave away"....JUICY</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30450892</id>
	<title>New business model</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260875820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While I completely agree with OS, the GPL and its enforcement.  The question that I ask myself is what impact those lawsuits will have on the OpenSource model.</p><p>Will patent trolls become OS Trolls and will OpenSource become Open 'sue us'?</p><p>This may be the rise of a new business model...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While I completely agree with OS , the GPL and its enforcement .
The question that I ask myself is what impact those lawsuits will have on the OpenSource model.Will patent trolls become OS Trolls and will OpenSource become Open 'sue us ' ? This may be the rise of a new business model.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I completely agree with OS, the GPL and its enforcement.
The question that I ask myself is what impact those lawsuits will have on the OpenSource model.Will patent trolls become OS Trolls and will OpenSource become Open 'sue us'?This may be the rise of a new business model...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30452056</id>
	<title>Re:Does it matter?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260881700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Indeed, the majority of Linux kernel based lawsuits are to do with netfilter...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed , the majority of Linux kernel based lawsuits are to do with netfilter.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed, the majority of Linux kernel based lawsuits are to do with netfilter...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449098</id>
	<title>Hey</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260868440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>No pitching your own crappy stuff here, ok?</htmltext>
<tokenext>No pitching your own crappy stuff here , ok ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No pitching your own crappy stuff here, ok?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30451222</id>
	<title>Re:OT: Can someone verify BP's favicon?</title>
	<author>wjsteele</author>
	<datestamp>1260877380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I see it as the head of a little lizzard.  Must be something with your browser.  Try upgrading it to IE8.  (Which is what I am using!)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)<br> <br>Bill</htmltext>
<tokenext>I see it as the head of a little lizzard .
Must be something with your browser .
Try upgrading it to IE8 .
( Which is what I am using !
) : - ) Bill</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see it as the head of a little lizzard.
Must be something with your browser.
Try upgrading it to IE8.
(Which is what I am using!
) :-) Bill</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449256</id>
	<title>Does it really matter?</title>
	<author>Silverlancer</author>
	<datestamp>1260869220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If person A and person B both contribute significant code to a program, and person B decides that he wants to sue Company C for infringing his copyright, how does Person A have the right to stop him?  Even if Person A doesn't care about Company C infringing his copyright, Company C is still infringing Person B's copyright, and Person B can still sue them.

(IANAL)</htmltext>
<tokenext>If person A and person B both contribute significant code to a program , and person B decides that he wants to sue Company C for infringing his copyright , how does Person A have the right to stop him ?
Even if Person A does n't care about Company C infringing his copyright , Company C is still infringing Person B 's copyright , and Person B can still sue them .
( IANAL )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If person A and person B both contribute significant code to a program, and person B decides that he wants to sue Company C for infringing his copyright, how does Person A have the right to stop him?
Even if Person A doesn't care about Company C infringing his copyright, Company C is still infringing Person B's copyright, and Person B can still sue them.
(IANAL)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449774</id>
	<title>They can't sue on behalf of all contributors</title>
	<author>tokul</author>
	<datestamp>1260871620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I have released a statement on the past and current Busybox lawsuits, which do not represent my interest."</p></div>
</blockquote><p>If software licensed under GPL does not have central authority, which requires assignment of copyright to it, SFLC has no other option but to support software writers who are wiling to sue.

</p><p>Although they can't claim that they own all code.

</p><p>SFLC operates on US and this is one of a few cases where they can support people who's license terms are violated. It gives SFLC some publicity, but it does not help others who ask for help and learn that they have to do everything themselves.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have released a statement on the past and current Busybox lawsuits , which do not represent my interest .
" If software licensed under GPL does not have central authority , which requires assignment of copyright to it , SFLC has no other option but to support software writers who are wiling to sue .
Although they ca n't claim that they own all code .
SFLC operates on US and this is one of a few cases where they can support people who 's license terms are violated .
It gives SFLC some publicity , but it does not help others who ask for help and learn that they have to do everything themselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have released a statement on the past and current Busybox lawsuits, which do not represent my interest.
"
If software licensed under GPL does not have central authority, which requires assignment of copyright to it, SFLC has no other option but to support software writers who are wiling to sue.
Although they can't claim that they own all code.
SFLC operates on US and this is one of a few cases where they can support people who's license terms are violated.
It gives SFLC some publicity, but it does not help others who ask for help and learn that they have to do everything themselves.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30453552</id>
	<title>Re:Backing Bruce's Copyright</title>
	<author>Diesel Dave</author>
	<datestamp>1260893580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In bulk reply:</p><p>1) There are two things here: Copyright and License. Bruce created a work. He holds copyright. He published that worked under a license. That license is the GPL. I had privilege to use, modify, and redistribute that work according to the license. The license requires that I respect Bruce's copyright and redistribute derivatives under that same license. I own copyright to the parts I have authored. This goes so forth and so on for each person. IMO the original author never loses copyright claim. Without question the original author remains the primary license grantor.</p><p>2) Violating the GPL means violating <b>the terms of the license</b>. According to the GPL if you violate these terms, you loose your privilege the work completely .</p><p>3) Before meaninglessly rambling actually read the GPL.</p><p>4) Before meaninglessly rambling actually read the courts documents. Anderson claims complete copyright here.</p><p>5) I would argue that from my knowledge Anderson <b>did not</b> hold the copyright for many of the code contributions he made into busybox (his employer did) and further more as Anderson is not respecting the terms of the original copyright and license term of the original author (Bruce) and authors before him (Me) he is in violation of Section 1 GPLv2, and has lost his his privileges to the software according to Section 4 GPLv2. In this case Anderson lacks standing to bring suit and he himself is open to an action.</p><p>6) One must wonder why the SFLC is working with Anderson when they have been aware that both Bruce and myself have more senior claims to the original work without the 'issues' Anderson has. As Bruce has written we've basically been snubbed by them.</p><p>7) I feel I speak for Bruce here in saying the most important issue for us is to have our interests be respected and to be a party to any terms of how the license is enforced. I would be content if it was ultimately left to Bruce because he is original author and respect that. I personally never made a penny from BusyBox unlike Anderson who's full time job paid him to work on BusyBox (and other work I created). When I start to read about 'undisclosed settlement amounts' and considering the full picture, it leaves a very bad taste not knowing exactly what is taking place here. I'm not allowed to know. Bruce is not allowed to know. That's not acceptable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In bulk reply : 1 ) There are two things here : Copyright and License .
Bruce created a work .
He holds copyright .
He published that worked under a license .
That license is the GPL .
I had privilege to use , modify , and redistribute that work according to the license .
The license requires that I respect Bruce 's copyright and redistribute derivatives under that same license .
I own copyright to the parts I have authored .
This goes so forth and so on for each person .
IMO the original author never loses copyright claim .
Without question the original author remains the primary license grantor.2 ) Violating the GPL means violating the terms of the license .
According to the GPL if you violate these terms , you loose your privilege the work completely .3 ) Before meaninglessly rambling actually read the GPL.4 ) Before meaninglessly rambling actually read the courts documents .
Anderson claims complete copyright here.5 ) I would argue that from my knowledge Anderson did not hold the copyright for many of the code contributions he made into busybox ( his employer did ) and further more as Anderson is not respecting the terms of the original copyright and license term of the original author ( Bruce ) and authors before him ( Me ) he is in violation of Section 1 GPLv2 , and has lost his his privileges to the software according to Section 4 GPLv2 .
In this case Anderson lacks standing to bring suit and he himself is open to an action.6 ) One must wonder why the SFLC is working with Anderson when they have been aware that both Bruce and myself have more senior claims to the original work without the 'issues ' Anderson has .
As Bruce has written we 've basically been snubbed by them.7 ) I feel I speak for Bruce here in saying the most important issue for us is to have our interests be respected and to be a party to any terms of how the license is enforced .
I would be content if it was ultimately left to Bruce because he is original author and respect that .
I personally never made a penny from BusyBox unlike Anderson who 's full time job paid him to work on BusyBox ( and other work I created ) .
When I start to read about 'undisclosed settlement amounts ' and considering the full picture , it leaves a very bad taste not knowing exactly what is taking place here .
I 'm not allowed to know .
Bruce is not allowed to know .
That 's not acceptable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In bulk reply:1) There are two things here: Copyright and License.
Bruce created a work.
He holds copyright.
He published that worked under a license.
That license is the GPL.
I had privilege to use, modify, and redistribute that work according to the license.
The license requires that I respect Bruce's copyright and redistribute derivatives under that same license.
I own copyright to the parts I have authored.
This goes so forth and so on for each person.
IMO the original author never loses copyright claim.
Without question the original author remains the primary license grantor.2) Violating the GPL means violating the terms of the license.
According to the GPL if you violate these terms, you loose your privilege the work completely .3) Before meaninglessly rambling actually read the GPL.4) Before meaninglessly rambling actually read the courts documents.
Anderson claims complete copyright here.5) I would argue that from my knowledge Anderson did not hold the copyright for many of the code contributions he made into busybox (his employer did) and further more as Anderson is not respecting the terms of the original copyright and license term of the original author (Bruce) and authors before him (Me) he is in violation of Section 1 GPLv2, and has lost his his privileges to the software according to Section 4 GPLv2.
In this case Anderson lacks standing to bring suit and he himself is open to an action.6) One must wonder why the SFLC is working with Anderson when they have been aware that both Bruce and myself have more senior claims to the original work without the 'issues' Anderson has.
As Bruce has written we've basically been snubbed by them.7) I feel I speak for Bruce here in saying the most important issue for us is to have our interests be respected and to be a party to any terms of how the license is enforced.
I would be content if it was ultimately left to Bruce because he is original author and respect that.
I personally never made a penny from BusyBox unlike Anderson who's full time job paid him to work on BusyBox (and other work I created).
When I start to read about 'undisclosed settlement amounts' and considering the full picture, it leaves a very bad taste not knowing exactly what is taking place here.
I'm not allowed to know.
Bruce is not allowed to know.
That's not acceptable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449614</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449936</id>
	<title>Re:Does it really matter?</title>
	<author>Bruce Perens</author>
	<datestamp>1260872220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Bruce's statement implies that SFLC is using rather overzealous "sue without negotiation beforehand"</p></div> </blockquote><p>No, they probably did contact the now-defendants. That's their usual process.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bruce 's statement implies that SFLC is using rather overzealous " sue without negotiation beforehand " No , they probably did contact the now-defendants .
That 's their usual process .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bruce's statement implies that SFLC is using rather overzealous "sue without negotiation beforehand" No, they probably did contact the now-defendants.
That's their usual process.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30450760</id>
	<title>I used Eric Anderson in 2000 to consult on Busybox</title>
	<author>cellurl</author>
	<datestamp>1260875220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>In my mind, Eric was the inventor. I paid him in 2000 to add some uClinux / Busybox code to the Coldfire project for my Blabbermouth product at airlib.com.<br>
I would probe the uClinux guys, Lineo, Greg Ungerer, Phil Wilshire...<br> <br>

Sometimes its the guy who "ran with it" who assumes ownership....<br>

After the fact, that is tough to swallow. And the Busybox name and concept is genius whoever did it.<br>

<a href="http://www.wikispeedia.org/" title="wikispeedia.org" rel="nofollow">Merry Christmas</a> [wikispeedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>In my mind , Eric was the inventor .
I paid him in 2000 to add some uClinux / Busybox code to the Coldfire project for my Blabbermouth product at airlib.com .
I would probe the uClinux guys , Lineo , Greg Ungerer , Phil Wilshire.. . Sometimes its the guy who " ran with it " who assumes ownership... . After the fact , that is tough to swallow .
And the Busybox name and concept is genius whoever did it .
Merry Christmas [ wikispeedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In my mind, Eric was the inventor.
I paid him in 2000 to add some uClinux / Busybox code to the Coldfire project for my Blabbermouth product at airlib.com.
I would probe the uClinux guys, Lineo, Greg Ungerer, Phil Wilshire... 

Sometimes its the guy who "ran with it" who assumes ownership....

After the fact, that is tough to swallow.
And the Busybox name and concept is genius whoever did it.
Merry Christmas [wikispeedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449448</id>
	<title>Re:Does it really matter?</title>
	<author>Surt</author>
	<datestamp>1260870180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A does not have the right to stop him.  A may have the LEVERAGE to stop him, if B happens to have gone crazy violating A's copyrights in the process.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A does not have the right to stop him .
A may have the LEVERAGE to stop him , if B happens to have gone crazy violating A 's copyrights in the process .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A does not have the right to stop him.
A may have the LEVERAGE to stop him, if B happens to have gone crazy violating A's copyrights in the process.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449256</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30454620</id>
	<title>Re:Does it matter?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260906000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, from a business perspective it certainly does. It might end with Perens standing in court giving his account of the situation. Or it might end with just a little more business courtesy before moving ahead on something like this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , from a business perspective it certainly does .
It might end with Perens standing in court giving his account of the situation .
Or it might end with just a little more business courtesy before moving ahead on something like this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, from a business perspective it certainly does.
It might end with Perens standing in court giving his account of the situation.
Or it might end with just a little more business courtesy before moving ahead on something like this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449508</id>
	<title>it doesn't matter</title>
	<author>jipn4</author>
	<datestamp>1260870480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anybody who has contributed to a piece of GPL software has standing to bring lawsuits against people who violate the GPL.  Who has contributed the "majority" of the code is immaterial.  I'm sorry this is inconvenient for Bruce Perens, but it can't reasonably work any different.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anybody who has contributed to a piece of GPL software has standing to bring lawsuits against people who violate the GPL .
Who has contributed the " majority " of the code is immaterial .
I 'm sorry this is inconvenient for Bruce Perens , but it ca n't reasonably work any different .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anybody who has contributed to a piece of GPL software has standing to bring lawsuits against people who violate the GPL.
Who has contributed the "majority" of the code is immaterial.
I'm sorry this is inconvenient for Bruce Perens, but it can't reasonably work any different.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449460</id>
	<title>Quick and dirty translation:</title>
	<author>Jailbrekr</author>
	<datestamp>1260870240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Stop being a dick.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Stop being a dick .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stop being a dick.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30453748</id>
	<title>Microsft loves GPL Lawsuits</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260895620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft will love this!<br>This thread gives them a lot of evidence about why GPL should never be used.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft will love this ! This thread gives them a lot of evidence about why GPL should never be used .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft will love this!This thread gives them a lot of evidence about why GPL should never be used.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449796</id>
	<title>Re:Backing Bruce's Copyright</title>
	<author>larry bagina</author>
	<datestamp>1260871680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>what the fuck are you smoking?  If bruce's code is gone, then what does he have copyright on?   The use of the GPL license?</htmltext>
<tokenext>what the fuck are you smoking ?
If bruce 's code is gone , then what does he have copyright on ?
The use of the GPL license ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what the fuck are you smoking?
If bruce's code is gone, then what does he have copyright on?
The use of the GPL license?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449614</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449862</id>
	<title>Re:it doesn't matter</title>
	<author>Diesel Dave</author>
	<datestamp>1260871920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anyone who has contributed to a piece of GPL software, reserves their copyright, and <b>does not violate the GPL license</b> has rights to defend their own copyright in the work. The issue you may be missing is this is not clearly the situation with Anderson for several reasons.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone who has contributed to a piece of GPL software , reserves their copyright , and does not violate the GPL license has rights to defend their own copyright in the work .
The issue you may be missing is this is not clearly the situation with Anderson for several reasons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone who has contributed to a piece of GPL software, reserves their copyright, and does not violate the GPL license has rights to defend their own copyright in the work.
The issue you may be missing is this is not clearly the situation with Anderson for several reasons.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449508</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449590</id>
	<title>Re:OT: Can someone verify BP's favicon?</title>
	<author>phantomcircuit</author>
	<datestamp>1260870780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a bug, <a href="http://perens.com/favicon.ico" title="perens.com">http://perens.com/favicon.ico</a> [perens.com] returns an empty file (zero bytes long). I guess chromo can't handle that (firefox does<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;) )</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a bug , http : //perens.com/favicon.ico [ perens.com ] returns an empty file ( zero bytes long ) .
I guess chromo ca n't handle that ( firefox does ; ) )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a bug, http://perens.com/favicon.ico [perens.com] returns an empty file (zero bytes long).
I guess chromo can't handle that (firefox does ;) )</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30450400</id>
	<title>Re:Does it matter?</title>
	<author>dch24</author>
	<datestamp>1260873960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They would need to specify that they are claiming copyright on specific parts of the code.<br>
<br>
Misrepresenting their claim could seriously hurt their chances in court.<br>
<br>
Further, it doesn't seem like Bruce is trying to get in on the court case. He's representing <i>his interests as a consultant and a copyright holder</i> -- so it would be wise for the SFLC and Andersen and Landley to pay attention -- or they could end up on the receiving end of all this suing.<br>
<br>
Not by Bruce, mind you. I think there's a chance the companies they are suing will countersue for damages and use Bruce's arguments in the case.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They would need to specify that they are claiming copyright on specific parts of the code .
Misrepresenting their claim could seriously hurt their chances in court .
Further , it does n't seem like Bruce is trying to get in on the court case .
He 's representing his interests as a consultant and a copyright holder -- so it would be wise for the SFLC and Andersen and Landley to pay attention -- or they could end up on the receiving end of all this suing .
Not by Bruce , mind you .
I think there 's a chance the companies they are suing will countersue for damages and use Bruce 's arguments in the case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They would need to specify that they are claiming copyright on specific parts of the code.
Misrepresenting their claim could seriously hurt their chances in court.
Further, it doesn't seem like Bruce is trying to get in on the court case.
He's representing his interests as a consultant and a copyright holder -- so it would be wise for the SFLC and Andersen and Landley to pay attention -- or they could end up on the receiving end of all this suing.
Not by Bruce, mind you.
I think there's a chance the companies they are suing will countersue for damages and use Bruce's arguments in the case.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30450830</id>
	<title>Re:Hey</title>
	<author>Bruce Penises</author>
	<datestamp>1260875520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>No pitching your own crappy stuff here, ok?</p></div><p>Well, what good have you done for Open Source?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No pitching your own crappy stuff here , ok ? Well , what good have you done for Open Source ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No pitching your own crappy stuff here, ok?Well, what good have you done for Open Source?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30450008</id>
	<title>Sounds like...</title>
	<author>interval1066</author>
	<datestamp>1260872520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>...a huge legal mess to me. Glad I'm not involved. Ok, time to enjoy a movie from my HP Media Vault...</htmltext>
<tokenext>...a huge legal mess to me .
Glad I 'm not involved .
Ok , time to enjoy a movie from my HP Media Vault.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...a huge legal mess to me.
Glad I'm not involved.
Ok, time to enjoy a movie from my HP Media Vault...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30452894</id>
	<title>So write another one.</title>
	<author>Animats</author>
	<datestamp>1260887220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
I'm surprised that someone hasn't written something like BusyBox starting from FreeBSD's utilities.  Busybox is just "cat", "echo", "grep", etc. all in one executable with some common code merged. It's not like it's a significant original work.   FreeBSD has all those components with the BSD license.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm surprised that someone has n't written something like BusyBox starting from FreeBSD 's utilities .
Busybox is just " cat " , " echo " , " grep " , etc .
all in one executable with some common code merged .
It 's not like it 's a significant original work .
FreeBSD has all those components with the BSD license .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
I'm surprised that someone hasn't written something like BusyBox starting from FreeBSD's utilities.
Busybox is just "cat", "echo", "grep", etc.
all in one executable with some common code merged.
It's not like it's a significant original work.
FreeBSD has all those components with the BSD license.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30451306</id>
	<title>Re:Does it really matter?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260877860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Another point which may help shed light on the current dust-up is that both Parens and Rob Landley (the current Busybox maintainer) are fairly well known for being quite intolerant of folks who don't share their views. While I don't know either of them personally, I get the sense I wouldn't want to spend a whole lot of time with them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Another point which may help shed light on the current dust-up is that both Parens and Rob Landley ( the current Busybox maintainer ) are fairly well known for being quite intolerant of folks who do n't share their views .
While I do n't know either of them personally , I get the sense I would n't want to spend a whole lot of time with them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another point which may help shed light on the current dust-up is that both Parens and Rob Landley (the current Busybox maintainer) are fairly well known for being quite intolerant of folks who don't share their views.
While I don't know either of them personally, I get the sense I wouldn't want to spend a whole lot of time with them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30453448</id>
	<title>Re:Does it really matter?</title>
	<author>geminidomino</author>
	<datestamp>1260892380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What I take from it is that  Person A (Bruce) and Person B (this other guy) both contributed to BusyBox and now PersonSet C (Bruce's clients) are starting to get worried that Person B is going to go after THEM, and Person A is taking a public stance to reassure them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What I take from it is that Person A ( Bruce ) and Person B ( this other guy ) both contributed to BusyBox and now PersonSet C ( Bruce 's clients ) are starting to get worried that Person B is going to go after THEM , and Person A is taking a public stance to reassure them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I take from it is that  Person A (Bruce) and Person B (this other guy) both contributed to BusyBox and now PersonSet C (Bruce's clients) are starting to get worried that Person B is going to go after THEM, and Person A is taking a public stance to reassure them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449256</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449420</id>
	<title>Re:Does it really matter?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260870060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm guessing that person A could argue that the work contributed by person B was mostly derivative and thus person B does not have any copyright claim due to this.</p><p>Personally, I'm surprised that anyone would be bold enough to actually remove copyright notices from existing GPL'd code.  Even if you completely rewrite something, piece by piece, over a period of time, that doesn't mean your work is not derivative of the original.</p><p>I'm not aware that there is yet any clear rule on this issue, or even that one is possible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm guessing that person A could argue that the work contributed by person B was mostly derivative and thus person B does not have any copyright claim due to this.Personally , I 'm surprised that anyone would be bold enough to actually remove copyright notices from existing GPL 'd code .
Even if you completely rewrite something , piece by piece , over a period of time , that does n't mean your work is not derivative of the original.I 'm not aware that there is yet any clear rule on this issue , or even that one is possible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm guessing that person A could argue that the work contributed by person B was mostly derivative and thus person B does not have any copyright claim due to this.Personally, I'm surprised that anyone would be bold enough to actually remove copyright notices from existing GPL'd code.
Even if you completely rewrite something, piece by piece, over a period of time, that doesn't mean your work is not derivative of the original.I'm not aware that there is yet any clear rule on this issue, or even that one is possible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449256</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449912</id>
	<title>Drama, drama.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260872100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Tired of all the pointless drama?  Looking for a way to encourage the open source movement to stop wasting time on boring stuff that ultimately doesn't really matter and just keep on producing cool and useful stuff?  Then step right up, the <a href="http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php" title="opensource.org" rel="nofollow">solution</a> [opensource.org] to our problems has finally arrived!... several years ago.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Tired of all the pointless drama ?
Looking for a way to encourage the open source movement to stop wasting time on boring stuff that ultimately does n't really matter and just keep on producing cool and useful stuff ?
Then step right up , the solution [ opensource.org ] to our problems has finally arrived ! .. .
several years ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tired of all the pointless drama?
Looking for a way to encourage the open source movement to stop wasting time on boring stuff that ultimately doesn't really matter and just keep on producing cool and useful stuff?
Then step right up, the solution [opensource.org] to our problems has finally arrived!...
several years ago.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449298</id>
	<title>OT: Can someone verify BP's favicon?</title>
	<author>BertieBaggio</author>
	<datestamp>1260869460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Completely off-topic, but what the hell, it was an odd piece to read. For me, in Chrome, Bruce's website has a very similar favicon to Microsoft. See:</p><p> <a href="http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/8692/perens.jpg" title="imageshack.us">http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/8692/perens.jpg</a> [imageshack.us] </p><p>Of course, it's probably a bug as I can't verify this in another browser (doesn't display). If it is, is a nice throwback to the good old days... I remember when it used to be a horrible experience to try and get IE4/5 (?) to flush a cached favicon in a bookmark (favourite). Those were the days...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Completely off-topic , but what the hell , it was an odd piece to read .
For me , in Chrome , Bruce 's website has a very similar favicon to Microsoft .
See : http : //img198.imageshack.us/img198/8692/perens.jpg [ imageshack.us ] Of course , it 's probably a bug as I ca n't verify this in another browser ( does n't display ) .
If it is , is a nice throwback to the good old days... I remember when it used to be a horrible experience to try and get IE4/5 ( ?
) to flush a cached favicon in a bookmark ( favourite ) .
Those were the days.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Completely off-topic, but what the hell, it was an odd piece to read.
For me, in Chrome, Bruce's website has a very similar favicon to Microsoft.
See: http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/8692/perens.jpg [imageshack.us] Of course, it's probably a bug as I can't verify this in another browser (doesn't display).
If it is, is a nice throwback to the good old days... I remember when it used to be a horrible experience to try and get IE4/5 (?
) to flush a cached favicon in a bookmark (favourite).
Those were the days...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449410</id>
	<title>Re:Does it really matter?</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1260870000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It matters because Bruce's strategic consulting revenues are (apparently) being impacted by the law suits.</p><p>This is him trying to separate himself from the suits (in the public perception sense, he states that he is not party to them).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It matters because Bruce 's strategic consulting revenues are ( apparently ) being impacted by the law suits.This is him trying to separate himself from the suits ( in the public perception sense , he states that he is not party to them ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It matters because Bruce's strategic consulting revenues are (apparently) being impacted by the law suits.This is him trying to separate himself from the suits (in the public perception sense, he states that he is not party to them).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449256</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30455428</id>
	<title>Linux Driver Code</title>
	<author>GNUPublicLicense</author>
	<datestamp>1259667000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hu... more than busybox... we want optimal Linux driver code</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hu... more than busybox... we want optimal Linux driver code</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hu... more than busybox... we want optimal Linux driver code</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30451284</id>
	<title>Re:Backing Bruce's Copyright</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260877740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>My privileges and Anderson's privileges (if any ?) to alter and redistribute Bruce's work are based on those license terms derived from Bruce's initial publication and you can not simply 'code them away' unless you start from scratch.</i></p><p>Yes you can. If your code does not exist in the version(s) in question, you have been factored out. That's life. Any developer with real experience will know that. If you want to get pissy over code, you need to go back to older versions where your code was still in use. Except it's so old, no one gives a shit about it anymore.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My privileges and Anderson 's privileges ( if any ?
) to alter and redistribute Bruce 's work are based on those license terms derived from Bruce 's initial publication and you can not simply 'code them away ' unless you start from scratch.Yes you can .
If your code does not exist in the version ( s ) in question , you have been factored out .
That 's life .
Any developer with real experience will know that .
If you want to get pissy over code , you need to go back to older versions where your code was still in use .
Except it 's so old , no one gives a shit about it anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My privileges and Anderson's privileges (if any ?
) to alter and redistribute Bruce's work are based on those license terms derived from Bruce's initial publication and you can not simply 'code them away' unless you start from scratch.Yes you can.
If your code does not exist in the version(s) in question, you have been factored out.
That's life.
Any developer with real experience will know that.
If you want to get pissy over code, you need to go back to older versions where your code was still in use.
Except it's so old, no one gives a shit about it anymore.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449614</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449490</id>
	<title>Re:Does it really matter?</title>
	<author>Andy Dodd</author>
	<datestamp>1260870360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the issue is whether false claims have been made about Person A in the process of Person B suing Company C.  Bruce's statement kind of implies that.</p><p>Also, Bruce's statement implies that SFLC is using rather overzealous "sue without negotiation beforehand" techniques that are damaging to the business of some of the other Busybox developers, including himself.  Whether he has a legal leg to stand on is unknown, either way it's kind of a "dick move" on the part of those involved in the lawsuit.</p><p>It's just like the patent system - there are companies that are typically very reasonable in terms of patent license negotiations and consider a lawsuit to be an absolute last resort (I knew someone who worked for Lucent's IP licensing organization - lawsuits were an asbolute last resort for them.), while other companies prefer to patent troll and immediately open up with a lawsuit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the issue is whether false claims have been made about Person A in the process of Person B suing Company C. Bruce 's statement kind of implies that.Also , Bruce 's statement implies that SFLC is using rather overzealous " sue without negotiation beforehand " techniques that are damaging to the business of some of the other Busybox developers , including himself .
Whether he has a legal leg to stand on is unknown , either way it 's kind of a " dick move " on the part of those involved in the lawsuit.It 's just like the patent system - there are companies that are typically very reasonable in terms of patent license negotiations and consider a lawsuit to be an absolute last resort ( I knew someone who worked for Lucent 's IP licensing organization - lawsuits were an asbolute last resort for them .
) , while other companies prefer to patent troll and immediately open up with a lawsuit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the issue is whether false claims have been made about Person A in the process of Person B suing Company C.  Bruce's statement kind of implies that.Also, Bruce's statement implies that SFLC is using rather overzealous "sue without negotiation beforehand" techniques that are damaging to the business of some of the other Busybox developers, including himself.
Whether he has a legal leg to stand on is unknown, either way it's kind of a "dick move" on the part of those involved in the lawsuit.It's just like the patent system - there are companies that are typically very reasonable in terms of patent license negotiations and consider a lawsuit to be an absolute last resort (I knew someone who worked for Lucent's IP licensing organization - lawsuits were an asbolute last resort for them.
), while other companies prefer to patent troll and immediately open up with a lawsuit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449256</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30450230</id>
	<title>Re:Drama, drama.</title>
	<author>brkello</author>
	<datestamp>1260873300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, I like the drama.  I find it somewhat amusing.  It is like Gossip Girl, except for people who are even nerdier than I am!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , I like the drama .
I find it somewhat amusing .
It is like Gossip Girl , except for people who are even nerdier than I am !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, I like the drama.
I find it somewhat amusing.
It is like Gossip Girl, except for people who are even nerdier than I am!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449480</id>
	<title>Re:OT: Can someone verify BP's favicon?</title>
	<author>clone53421</author>
	<datestamp>1260870300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hmm... that is most definitely <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/favicon.ico" title="microsoft.com">Microsoft&rsquo;s favicon</a> [microsoft.com], but requests for <a href="http://perens.com/favicon.ico" title="perens.com">http://perens.com/favicon.ico</a> [perens.com] gives this response:</p><blockquote><div><p> <tt>HTTP/1.1 200 OK<br>Via: 1.1 ISA03<br>Connection: Keep-Alive<br>Proxy-Connection: Keep-Alive<br>Content-Length: 0<br>Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 20:50:07 GMT<br>Content-Type: image/x-icon<br>ETag: "dc1-0-46da9de6675c0"<br>Server: Apache<br>Last-Modified: Wed, 01 Jul 2009 19:24:15 GMT<br>Accept-Ranges: bytes<br>Keep-Alive: timeout=2, max=100</tt></p></div> </blockquote><p>Looks like you found a bug in the way Chrome reacts to a zero-length favicon.ico!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:o</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmm... that is most definitely Microsoft    s favicon [ microsoft.com ] , but requests for http : //perens.com/favicon.ico [ perens.com ] gives this response : HTTP/1.1 200 OKVia : 1.1 ISA03Connection : Keep-AliveProxy-Connection : Keep-AliveContent-Length : 0Date : Tue , 15 Dec 2009 20 : 50 : 07 GMTContent-Type : image/x-iconETag : " dc1-0-46da9de6675c0 " Server : ApacheLast-Modified : Wed , 01 Jul 2009 19 : 24 : 15 GMTAccept-Ranges : bytesKeep-Alive : timeout = 2 , max = 100 Looks like you found a bug in the way Chrome reacts to a zero-length favicon.ico !
: o</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmm... that is most definitely Microsoft’s favicon [microsoft.com], but requests for http://perens.com/favicon.ico [perens.com] gives this response: HTTP/1.1 200 OKVia: 1.1 ISA03Connection: Keep-AliveProxy-Connection: Keep-AliveContent-Length: 0Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 20:50:07 GMTContent-Type: image/x-iconETag: "dc1-0-46da9de6675c0"Server: ApacheLast-Modified: Wed, 01 Jul 2009 19:24:15 GMTAccept-Ranges: bytesKeep-Alive: timeout=2, max=100 Looks like you found a bug in the way Chrome reacts to a zero-length favicon.ico!
:o
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30454854</id>
	<title>Re:Backing Bruce's Copyright</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259700720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Even if every line of code Bruce or myself wrote were replaced, it was done so on his and subsequently my license terms which are the GPL. My privileges and Anderson's privileges (if any ?) to alter and redistribute Bruce's work are based on those license terms derived from Bruce's initial publication and you can not simply 'code them away' unless you start from scratch.</p></div></blockquote><p>What about USL v. BSDi?  The Berkeley CSRG augmented UNIX and then later replaced all of AT&amp;T's code with BSD licensed code.  Granted the case was settled out of court, but the prevailing judge expressed doubt in USL's claims.</p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USL\_v.\_BSDi</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if every line of code Bruce or myself wrote were replaced , it was done so on his and subsequently my license terms which are the GPL .
My privileges and Anderson 's privileges ( if any ?
) to alter and redistribute Bruce 's work are based on those license terms derived from Bruce 's initial publication and you can not simply 'code them away ' unless you start from scratch.What about USL v. BSDi ? The Berkeley CSRG augmented UNIX and then later replaced all of AT&amp;T 's code with BSD licensed code .
Granted the case was settled out of court , but the prevailing judge expressed doubt in USL 's claims.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USL \ _v. \ _BSDi</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if every line of code Bruce or myself wrote were replaced, it was done so on his and subsequently my license terms which are the GPL.
My privileges and Anderson's privileges (if any ?
) to alter and redistribute Bruce's work are based on those license terms derived from Bruce's initial publication and you can not simply 'code them away' unless you start from scratch.What about USL v. BSDi?  The Berkeley CSRG augmented UNIX and then later replaced all of AT&amp;T's code with BSD licensed code.
Granted the case was settled out of court, but the prevailing judge expressed doubt in USL's claims.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USL\_v.\_BSDi
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449614</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30451932</id>
	<title>Why not BSD or Mozilla it?</title>
	<author>xquark</author>
	<datestamp>1260880980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bruce, why not change the license to something more agreeable with the general public. At least that way, you'd help keep the honest guys honest.... and also make using and modifying busybox related stuff all that more easier and inviting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bruce , why not change the license to something more agreeable with the general public .
At least that way , you 'd help keep the honest guys honest.... and also make using and modifying busybox related stuff all that more easier and inviting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bruce, why not change the license to something more agreeable with the general public.
At least that way, you'd help keep the honest guys honest.... and also make using and modifying busybox related stuff all that more easier and inviting.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449618</id>
	<title>Re:OT: Can someone verify BP's favicon?</title>
	<author>thePowerOfGrayskull</author>
	<datestamp>1260870900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't see any favicon - perhaps a browser bug where it's keeping the favicon of the previously opened tab?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see any favicon - perhaps a browser bug where it 's keeping the favicon of the previously opened tab ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't see any favicon - perhaps a browser bug where it's keeping the favicon of the previously opened tab?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449224</id>
	<title>Does it matter?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260869100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If Messrs Andersen and Landley own copyrights to any part of the Busybox program, they can sue for infringement of the copyright on their bit of the code, even if the majority of it was written by you.</p><p>In any case, I believe it contains a Linux kernel, or at least parts of it, written by Linus Torvalds and his friends, and presumably at least parts of the gnu tools that Busybox provides stripped down versions of.  This of course is perfectly permissible, and the whole point of the GPL and other free and open source software licences is to allow and encourage this sort of thing to happen.  All these developers have a copyright interest in the Busybox program, and could sue if they wanted to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Messrs Andersen and Landley own copyrights to any part of the Busybox program , they can sue for infringement of the copyright on their bit of the code , even if the majority of it was written by you.In any case , I believe it contains a Linux kernel , or at least parts of it , written by Linus Torvalds and his friends , and presumably at least parts of the gnu tools that Busybox provides stripped down versions of .
This of course is perfectly permissible , and the whole point of the GPL and other free and open source software licences is to allow and encourage this sort of thing to happen .
All these developers have a copyright interest in the Busybox program , and could sue if they wanted to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Messrs Andersen and Landley own copyrights to any part of the Busybox program, they can sue for infringement of the copyright on their bit of the code, even if the majority of it was written by you.In any case, I believe it contains a Linux kernel, or at least parts of it, written by Linus Torvalds and his friends, and presumably at least parts of the gnu tools that Busybox provides stripped down versions of.
This of course is perfectly permissible, and the whole point of the GPL and other free and open source software licences is to allow and encourage this sort of thing to happen.
All these developers have a copyright interest in the Busybox program, and could sue if they wanted to.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30450570</id>
	<title>Just to be clear</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260874620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some people here may find this story obscure, or hard to understand. Let me help out.</p><p>Busybox is a collection of tools for downloading and indexing pornographic data. Bruce Perens is the cousin of Jimbo Wales and got his start back when Wikipedia was supposed to be a porn repository.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some people here may find this story obscure , or hard to understand .
Let me help out.Busybox is a collection of tools for downloading and indexing pornographic data .
Bruce Perens is the cousin of Jimbo Wales and got his start back when Wikipedia was supposed to be a porn repository .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some people here may find this story obscure, or hard to understand.
Let me help out.Busybox is a collection of tools for downloading and indexing pornographic data.
Bruce Perens is the cousin of Jimbo Wales and got his start back when Wikipedia was supposed to be a porn repository.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449846</id>
	<title>Re:Does it really matter?</title>
	<author>Lumpy</author>
	<datestamp>1260871860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When lawyers are involved. It's always a "dick move"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When lawyers are involved .
It 's always a " dick move "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When lawyers are involved.
It's always a "dick move"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30452596</id>
	<title>license applied to code, but owned by coder</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260885060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IMO: the GPL software license is a choice made by the owner who originally wrote the code. I was under the impression that this license could change over time at the decision of the original owner. I always thought that Linus could at any time release Linux 3.0 under a different license... but doesn't do this because he is a good guy and would have trouble finding other coders to further support the project after that.</p><p>So the GPL license:<br>1. is a decision from the original coder who started the project.<br>2. can be changed at any time in the future (new future licensing terms).</p><p>These are my opinions/belief about how GPL works. Please correct me where I went wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IMO : the GPL software license is a choice made by the owner who originally wrote the code .
I was under the impression that this license could change over time at the decision of the original owner .
I always thought that Linus could at any time release Linux 3.0 under a different license... but does n't do this because he is a good guy and would have trouble finding other coders to further support the project after that.So the GPL license : 1. is a decision from the original coder who started the project.2 .
can be changed at any time in the future ( new future licensing terms ) .These are my opinions/belief about how GPL works .
Please correct me where I went wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IMO: the GPL software license is a choice made by the owner who originally wrote the code.
I was under the impression that this license could change over time at the decision of the original owner.
I always thought that Linus could at any time release Linux 3.0 under a different license... but doesn't do this because he is a good guy and would have trouble finding other coders to further support the project after that.So the GPL license:1. is a decision from the original coder who started the project.2.
can be changed at any time in the future (new future licensing terms).These are my opinions/belief about how GPL works.
Please correct me where I went wrong.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30457576</id>
	<title>Thanks for participating here Bruce</title>
	<author>1\_brown\_mouse</author>
	<datestamp>1259682960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>I appreciate the time and effort you gave to explain your position.&nbsp; And the time and effort of those here to get more information and understanding.<br><br>While you are not specifically represented in the case, I do hope it is successful in getting companies to follow the GPL.<br><br>BusyBox is a great asset to the Linux community.&nbsp; Thank you for sharing it.<br><br>/Yes, I know Thanksgiving was last month.<br>//I procrastinate a little.&nbsp; That is why this post is wayyyyyy down here at the bottom.<br>///Are slashies OK here too?</tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>I appreciate the time and effort you gave to explain your position.   And the time and effort of those here to get more information and understanding.While you are not specifically represented in the case , I do hope it is successful in getting companies to follow the GPL.BusyBox is a great asset to the Linux community.   Thank you for sharing it./Yes , I know Thanksgiving was last month.//I procrastinate a little.   That is why this post is wayyyyyy down here at the bottom.///Are slashies OK here too ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I appreciate the time and effort you gave to explain your position.  And the time and effort of those here to get more information and understanding.While you are not specifically represented in the case, I do hope it is successful in getting companies to follow the GPL.BusyBox is a great asset to the Linux community.  Thank you for sharing it./Yes, I know Thanksgiving was last month.//I procrastinate a little.  That is why this post is wayyyyyy down here at the bottom.///Are slashies OK here too?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30454082</id>
	<title>Re:license applied to code, but owned by coder</title>
	<author>HarrySquatter</author>
	<datestamp>1260899640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I always thought that Linus could at any time release Linux 3.0 under a different license... but doesn't do this because he is a good guy and would have trouble finding other coders to further support the project after that.</p></div><p>You thought wrong.  Unless Linus had all contributors to the kernel assign their copyrights to him he can't relicense it at his own whim and would have to have agreement with all other copyright holders.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I always thought that Linus could at any time release Linux 3.0 under a different license... but does n't do this because he is a good guy and would have trouble finding other coders to further support the project after that.You thought wrong .
Unless Linus had all contributors to the kernel assign their copyrights to him he ca n't relicense it at his own whim and would have to have agreement with all other copyright holders .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I always thought that Linus could at any time release Linux 3.0 under a different license... but doesn't do this because he is a good guy and would have trouble finding other coders to further support the project after that.You thought wrong.
Unless Linus had all contributors to the kernel assign their copyrights to him he can't relicense it at his own whim and would have to have agreement with all other copyright holders.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30452596</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449344</id>
	<title>IANAL</title>
	<author>Gudeldar</author>
	<datestamp>1260869700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>IANAL but my understanding is that any developer that has code in a GPL licensed project has standing to sue for violations of the license provided that they didn't assign their copyright to someone else. I don't know if Busybox forces contributors to assign their copyrights to someone but it doesn't appear as though they do.
<br> <br>
Perens's major complaints seems to be that the lawsuits are damaging his consulting business and that Andersen, Landrey, etc. removed the copyright statements of other developers. While I sympathize with him on both points, they are entirely unrelated to the merit of the SFLC's lawsuit.</htmltext>
<tokenext>IANAL but my understanding is that any developer that has code in a GPL licensed project has standing to sue for violations of the license provided that they did n't assign their copyright to someone else .
I do n't know if Busybox forces contributors to assign their copyrights to someone but it does n't appear as though they do .
Perens 's major complaints seems to be that the lawsuits are damaging his consulting business and that Andersen , Landrey , etc .
removed the copyright statements of other developers .
While I sympathize with him on both points , they are entirely unrelated to the merit of the SFLC 's lawsuit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IANAL but my understanding is that any developer that has code in a GPL licensed project has standing to sue for violations of the license provided that they didn't assign their copyright to someone else.
I don't know if Busybox forces contributors to assign their copyrights to someone but it doesn't appear as though they do.
Perens's major complaints seems to be that the lawsuits are damaging his consulting business and that Andersen, Landrey, etc.
removed the copyright statements of other developers.
While I sympathize with him on both points, they are entirely unrelated to the merit of the SFLC's lawsuit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30454676</id>
	<title>Re:it doesn't matter</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260906840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Anybody who has contributed to a piece of GPL software has standing to bring lawsuits against people who violate the GPL.</p></div><p>I don't think you know what you just said here.   I certainly hope you don't.   Which makes me worry even less about whatever else you might say, because if you can mess up that bad, why would I care what else you think?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anybody who has contributed to a piece of GPL software has standing to bring lawsuits against people who violate the GPL.I do n't think you know what you just said here .
I certainly hope you do n't .
Which makes me worry even less about whatever else you might say , because if you can mess up that bad , why would I care what else you think ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anybody who has contributed to a piece of GPL software has standing to bring lawsuits against people who violate the GPL.I don't think you know what you just said here.
I certainly hope you don't.
Which makes me worry even less about whatever else you might say, because if you can mess up that bad, why would I care what else you think?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449508</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30450364</id>
	<title>Re:Backing Bruce's Copyright</title>
	<author>SoTerrified</author>
	<datestamp>1260873840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Slashdot and car analogies...

I buy a car.  You ask if you can borrow the car to use, and I say "Sure".  Shortly after you find the tires have poor traction, and you have them replaced with better tires.  A while after, you see the bumper is dented, so you replace it with a better one.  Continue this process until, over the course of years, every single part of the car has been been replaced.  (Yes, even the frame was damaged, so you bought a new frame and had all the parts moved to the new frame.)

At what point did I cease to have any right to the car?  When I come up and say "Hey, how is my car doing", do you really think it's correct to respond "I replaced all the parts, it's my car now.  You don't own anything."</htmltext>
<tokenext>Slashdot and car analogies.. . I buy a car .
You ask if you can borrow the car to use , and I say " Sure " .
Shortly after you find the tires have poor traction , and you have them replaced with better tires .
A while after , you see the bumper is dented , so you replace it with a better one .
Continue this process until , over the course of years , every single part of the car has been been replaced .
( Yes , even the frame was damaged , so you bought a new frame and had all the parts moved to the new frame .
) At what point did I cease to have any right to the car ?
When I come up and say " Hey , how is my car doing " , do you really think it 's correct to respond " I replaced all the parts , it 's my car now .
You do n't own anything .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Slashdot and car analogies...

I buy a car.
You ask if you can borrow the car to use, and I say "Sure".
Shortly after you find the tires have poor traction, and you have them replaced with better tires.
A while after, you see the bumper is dented, so you replace it with a better one.
Continue this process until, over the course of years, every single part of the car has been been replaced.
(Yes, even the frame was damaged, so you bought a new frame and had all the parts moved to the new frame.
)

At what point did I cease to have any right to the car?
When I come up and say "Hey, how is my car doing", do you really think it's correct to respond "I replaced all the parts, it's my car now.
You don't own anything.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449110</id>
	<title>Proposition</title>
	<author>eldavojohn</author>
	<datestamp>1260868500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The version 0.60.3 of Busybox upon which Mr. Andersen claims copyright registration in the lawsuits is to a great extent my own work and that of other developers. I am not party to the registration. It is not at all clear that Mr. Andersen holds a majority interest in that work.</p></div><p>Perhaps it is high time you looked into <a href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=492058&amp;cid=22788666" title="slashdot.org">the allegations that "every line of code you wrote for Busybox is gone?"</a> [slashdot.org]  It <i>is</i> still GPLed, afterall.  Wouldn't your old code diffed against the new code reveal the truth in that statement and set things straight in whose interest the SFLC should be representing?  <br> <br>

If you can point me to a version/tag/branch/code repository where you assert your dominance in authorship, I would be more than happy to spend an hour when I get home tonight generating some stats against the current code (assuming that code hasn't been drastically moved around/repackaged/renamed).  Even so, it would fairly trivial to script an expensive file-by-file comparison and return a set of the most likely matches based on percentage similarities to establish what work of yours may remain.  Might even be a better tool out there than what I know of.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The version 0.60.3 of Busybox upon which Mr. Andersen claims copyright registration in the lawsuits is to a great extent my own work and that of other developers .
I am not party to the registration .
It is not at all clear that Mr. Andersen holds a majority interest in that work.Perhaps it is high time you looked into the allegations that " every line of code you wrote for Busybox is gone ?
" [ slashdot.org ] It is still GPLed , afterall .
Would n't your old code diffed against the new code reveal the truth in that statement and set things straight in whose interest the SFLC should be representing ?
If you can point me to a version/tag/branch/code repository where you assert your dominance in authorship , I would be more than happy to spend an hour when I get home tonight generating some stats against the current code ( assuming that code has n't been drastically moved around/repackaged/renamed ) .
Even so , it would fairly trivial to script an expensive file-by-file comparison and return a set of the most likely matches based on percentage similarities to establish what work of yours may remain .
Might even be a better tool out there than what I know of .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The version 0.60.3 of Busybox upon which Mr. Andersen claims copyright registration in the lawsuits is to a great extent my own work and that of other developers.
I am not party to the registration.
It is not at all clear that Mr. Andersen holds a majority interest in that work.Perhaps it is high time you looked into the allegations that "every line of code you wrote for Busybox is gone?
" [slashdot.org]  It is still GPLed, afterall.
Wouldn't your old code diffed against the new code reveal the truth in that statement and set things straight in whose interest the SFLC should be representing?
If you can point me to a version/tag/branch/code repository where you assert your dominance in authorship, I would be more than happy to spend an hour when I get home tonight generating some stats against the current code (assuming that code hasn't been drastically moved around/repackaged/renamed).
Even so, it would fairly trivial to script an expensive file-by-file comparison and return a set of the most likely matches based on percentage similarities to establish what work of yours may remain.
Might even be a better tool out there than what I know of.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30452102</id>
	<title>Re:Backing Bruce's Copyright</title>
	<author>bug1</author>
	<datestamp>1260881940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Anderson is claiming complete Copyright</i></p><p>Is he, where does he say that ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anderson is claiming complete CopyrightIs he , where does he say that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anderson is claiming complete CopyrightIs he, where does he say that ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449614</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30458108</id>
	<title>Re:So write another one.</title>
	<author>Just Some Guy</author>
	<datestamp>1259685000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm surprised that someone hasn't written something like BusyBox starting from FreeBSD's utilities.</p></div><p>They have. Go to a FreeBSD console and run <tt>ls -i<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/rescue</tt>. There are 133 binaries in that directory on my desktop, each being a hardlink to the same statically linked file, with behavior depending on the value of argv[0] when the program is run. The idea is to include all the programs you might need to repair a FreeBSD system in single-user without having even<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/usr mounted. See the <a href="http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=crunchgen&amp;sektion=1" title="freebsd.org">man page for crunchgen(1)</a> [freebsd.org] for more details.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm surprised that someone has n't written something like BusyBox starting from FreeBSD 's utilities.They have .
Go to a FreeBSD console and run ls -i /rescue .
There are 133 binaries in that directory on my desktop , each being a hardlink to the same statically linked file , with behavior depending on the value of argv [ 0 ] when the program is run .
The idea is to include all the programs you might need to repair a FreeBSD system in single-user without having even /usr mounted .
See the man page for crunchgen ( 1 ) [ freebsd.org ] for more details .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm surprised that someone hasn't written something like BusyBox starting from FreeBSD's utilities.They have.
Go to a FreeBSD console and run ls -i /rescue.
There are 133 binaries in that directory on my desktop, each being a hardlink to the same statically linked file, with behavior depending on the value of argv[0] when the program is run.
The idea is to include all the programs you might need to repair a FreeBSD system in single-user without having even /usr mounted.
See the man page for crunchgen(1) [freebsd.org] for more details.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30452894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30454554</id>
	<title>Re:license applied to code, but owned by coder</title>
	<author>Bruce Perens</author>
	<datestamp>1260904980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the U.S. the license is the choice of the copyright holder. There are many on Linux. And thus to change the license on Linux, you have to ask all of those copyright holders, as best as you are able to reach them, including through public notices. Then, you have to remove the work of those who object. And then you can relicense.</p><p>
This is so painful that there would have to be a very good reason. Like GPL2 becoming seriously less enforcible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the U.S. the license is the choice of the copyright holder .
There are many on Linux .
And thus to change the license on Linux , you have to ask all of those copyright holders , as best as you are able to reach them , including through public notices .
Then , you have to remove the work of those who object .
And then you can relicense .
This is so painful that there would have to be a very good reason .
Like GPL2 becoming seriously less enforcible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the U.S. the license is the choice of the copyright holder.
There are many on Linux.
And thus to change the license on Linux, you have to ask all of those copyright holders, as best as you are able to reach them, including through public notices.
Then, you have to remove the work of those who object.
And then you can relicense.
This is so painful that there would have to be a very good reason.
Like GPL2 becoming seriously less enforcible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30452596</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30451104</id>
	<title>Re:Backing Bruce's Copyright</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260876900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The violation in your analogy would be that the car in it's original form was destroyed, thus depriving the lender of his property.  The new car isn't the original property.  If, during the act of replacing all the old parts you assembled them to eventually create the original car you borrowed, then your new car is yours and the original goes back to the owner.  The analogy to software would be that you provided the original source code in it's original form to anyone who asked, in compliance with the original license.  And any intermediate forms that still contained old code.  The interesting point comes when all the original code is gone and all that is left is the new code, solely created by the new author.  Other than the nebulous "derivative", I don't see how the original author should have much claim over the new work, particularly if the old work is still available.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The violation in your analogy would be that the car in it 's original form was destroyed , thus depriving the lender of his property .
The new car is n't the original property .
If , during the act of replacing all the old parts you assembled them to eventually create the original car you borrowed , then your new car is yours and the original goes back to the owner .
The analogy to software would be that you provided the original source code in it 's original form to anyone who asked , in compliance with the original license .
And any intermediate forms that still contained old code .
The interesting point comes when all the original code is gone and all that is left is the new code , solely created by the new author .
Other than the nebulous " derivative " , I do n't see how the original author should have much claim over the new work , particularly if the old work is still available .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The violation in your analogy would be that the car in it's original form was destroyed, thus depriving the lender of his property.
The new car isn't the original property.
If, during the act of replacing all the old parts you assembled them to eventually create the original car you borrowed, then your new car is yours and the original goes back to the owner.
The analogy to software would be that you provided the original source code in it's original form to anyone who asked, in compliance with the original license.
And any intermediate forms that still contained old code.
The interesting point comes when all the original code is gone and all that is left is the new code, solely created by the new author.
Other than the nebulous "derivative", I don't see how the original author should have much claim over the new work, particularly if the old work is still available.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30450364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449430</id>
	<title>Re:Does it really matter?</title>
	<author>mmoore</author>
	<datestamp>1260870120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But person A disagrees, which I guess is the point to all this.

I personally don't think anything is going to change as far as the legal action represented here, but if it did, things like this could be the beginning of the end for the GPL. I'm actually surprised that they never accounted for anything like this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But person A disagrees , which I guess is the point to all this .
I personally do n't think anything is going to change as far as the legal action represented here , but if it did , things like this could be the beginning of the end for the GPL .
I 'm actually surprised that they never accounted for anything like this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But person A disagrees, which I guess is the point to all this.
I personally don't think anything is going to change as far as the legal action represented here, but if it did, things like this could be the beginning of the end for the GPL.
I'm actually surprised that they never accounted for anything like this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449256</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30450582</id>
	<title>Re:Backing Bruce's Copyright</title>
	<author>euxneks</author>
	<datestamp>1260874620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So what would happen if, (creating a trivially ridiculous case for the sake of argument) I created a "hello world" application, GPL'd it, handed the project over to another maintainer, and that maintainer rewrote it to play movies?  Would I still get copyleft claims if someone then broke the GPL on that resulting source?
</p><p>
What, exactly, is the thing that is GPL'd? The name of the project?  The \_spirit\_ of the project?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So what would happen if , ( creating a trivially ridiculous case for the sake of argument ) I created a " hello world " application , GPL 'd it , handed the project over to another maintainer , and that maintainer rewrote it to play movies ?
Would I still get copyleft claims if someone then broke the GPL on that resulting source ?
What , exactly , is the thing that is GPL 'd ?
The name of the project ?
The \ _spirit \ _ of the project ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what would happen if, (creating a trivially ridiculous case for the sake of argument) I created a "hello world" application, GPL'd it, handed the project over to another maintainer, and that maintainer rewrote it to play movies?
Would I still get copyleft claims if someone then broke the GPL on that resulting source?
What, exactly, is the thing that is GPL'd?
The name of the project?
The \_spirit\_ of the project?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449614</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30450520</id>
	<title>Re:Backing Bruce's Copyright</title>
	<author>c0d3g33k</author>
	<datestamp>1260874440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll have to agree with larry here.  This touches an area that is nuanced, to say the least, but replacing the code needs to be an option in some cases.  As an example, I worked on an OSS project several years back.  For perfectly valid reasons, the current project maintainer wanted to change the license.  He attempted to contact all the authors for their permission to relicense the code under the new license.  If he got no response, or the original author said "no", then his only option was to replace the code with code he had written himself.  This seems a perfectly valid approach to me, considering the old code is still available from the same source.  I happened to miss noticing his request until it was too late (infrequently checked mail account), so was happy he could replace the code and move on.</p><p>I suppose if one wanted to adopt a strict interpretation of "derivative", then replacing code within an existing framework might be considered in violation of the license, but people really need to think before playing this card.  It makes situations like "if you show us patented code in our application, we'll replace it" much more difficult to reconcile easily, especially if the code violating the patent was part of the original application code.  Then the replacement code is 'derivative' and still subject to the original claims.</p><p>That's a mighty big can of worms you could be opening, Diesel Dave.  Maybe even Pandora's box.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll have to agree with larry here .
This touches an area that is nuanced , to say the least , but replacing the code needs to be an option in some cases .
As an example , I worked on an OSS project several years back .
For perfectly valid reasons , the current project maintainer wanted to change the license .
He attempted to contact all the authors for their permission to relicense the code under the new license .
If he got no response , or the original author said " no " , then his only option was to replace the code with code he had written himself .
This seems a perfectly valid approach to me , considering the old code is still available from the same source .
I happened to miss noticing his request until it was too late ( infrequently checked mail account ) , so was happy he could replace the code and move on.I suppose if one wanted to adopt a strict interpretation of " derivative " , then replacing code within an existing framework might be considered in violation of the license , but people really need to think before playing this card .
It makes situations like " if you show us patented code in our application , we 'll replace it " much more difficult to reconcile easily , especially if the code violating the patent was part of the original application code .
Then the replacement code is 'derivative ' and still subject to the original claims.That 's a mighty big can of worms you could be opening , Diesel Dave .
Maybe even Pandora 's box .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll have to agree with larry here.
This touches an area that is nuanced, to say the least, but replacing the code needs to be an option in some cases.
As an example, I worked on an OSS project several years back.
For perfectly valid reasons, the current project maintainer wanted to change the license.
He attempted to contact all the authors for their permission to relicense the code under the new license.
If he got no response, or the original author said "no", then his only option was to replace the code with code he had written himself.
This seems a perfectly valid approach to me, considering the old code is still available from the same source.
I happened to miss noticing his request until it was too late (infrequently checked mail account), so was happy he could replace the code and move on.I suppose if one wanted to adopt a strict interpretation of "derivative", then replacing code within an existing framework might be considered in violation of the license, but people really need to think before playing this card.
It makes situations like "if you show us patented code in our application, we'll replace it" much more difficult to reconcile easily, especially if the code violating the patent was part of the original application code.
Then the replacement code is 'derivative' and still subject to the original claims.That's a mighty big can of worms you could be opening, Diesel Dave.
Maybe even Pandora's box.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449796</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_1925257_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30450582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449614
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_1925257_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30458108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30452894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_1925257_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30450432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449614
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_1925257_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30454676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449508
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_1925257_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30450570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_1925257_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30452056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_1925257_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449256
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_1925257_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_1925257_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30454620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_1925257_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30451104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30450364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449614
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_1925257_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30450384
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449508
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_1925257_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30451284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449614
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_1925257_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449256
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_1925257_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30453552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449614
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_1925257_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30455014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30453748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_1925257_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449508
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_1925257_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30453142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449614
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_1925257_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30453448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449256
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_1925257_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30450230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_1925257_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30451222
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_1925257_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449256
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_1925257_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30450222
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449614
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_1925257_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30452102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449614
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_1925257_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30450830
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_1925257_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449256
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_1925257_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449256
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_1925257_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_1925257_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30454554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30452596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_1925257_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30450400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_1925257_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30454082
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30452596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_1925257_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30451306
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449256
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_1925257_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30450520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449614
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_1925257_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_1925257_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30454854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449614
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_1925257_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449256
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_15_1925257.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30453748
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30455014
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_15_1925257.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449110
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_15_1925257.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30452894
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30458108
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_15_1925257.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449614
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30450432
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30452102
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449796
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30450520
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30450364
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30451104
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30450222
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30450582
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30453142
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30454854
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30453552
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30451284
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_15_1925257.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449256
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449420
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449430
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449410
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449448
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449490
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449936
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30451306
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449846
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30453448
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_15_1925257.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449224
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30452056
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30450400
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30454620
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_15_1925257.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30451626
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_15_1925257.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449508
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30454676
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449862
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30450384
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_15_1925257.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449298
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449618
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30451222
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449590
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449480
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_15_1925257.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449912
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30450230
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_15_1925257.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30450348
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_15_1925257.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30452596
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30454082
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30454554
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_15_1925257.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30449098
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30450830
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30450570
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_15_1925257.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1925257.30450892
</commentlist>
</conversation>
