<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_07_0241259</id>
	<title>Is Getting Acquired Good For FOSS Projects?</title>
	<author>samzenpus</author>
	<datestamp>1262877840000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>ruphus13 writes <i>"While open source companies are legion, their acquisitions by proprietary source companies may cause concern for the viability of projects. Can a <a href="http://gigaom.com/2010/01/05/leave-virginia-alone-on-open-source-and-proprietary-threats/">FOSS project 'survive' an acquisition</a>?  According to the article posing that question: 'One has to ask, though, how healthy it is for increasingly important open-source platforms and applications to come under the wing of huge, proprietary software companies. Probably the best example to cite on that topic is the ongoing car crash that is Oracle&rsquo;s proposed acquisition of Sun Microsystems...Sun Micrososytems is one of only three big, US public companies focused almost entirely on open source. If it gets swallowed up, that will leave just Red Hat and Novell. Open-source pundits are predicting that small, promising open-source players will be snapped up by bigger fish this year. And Google's relationship to Android gets ever murkier as it sinks its commercial hooks deeper into the platform, billing its own offerings as superphones relative to other Android phones.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>ruphus13 writes " While open source companies are legion , their acquisitions by proprietary source companies may cause concern for the viability of projects .
Can a FOSS project 'survive ' an acquisition ?
According to the article posing that question : 'One has to ask , though , how healthy it is for increasingly important open-source platforms and applications to come under the wing of huge , proprietary software companies .
Probably the best example to cite on that topic is the ongoing car crash that is Oracle    s proposed acquisition of Sun Microsystems...Sun Micrososytems is one of only three big , US public companies focused almost entirely on open source .
If it gets swallowed up , that will leave just Red Hat and Novell .
Open-source pundits are predicting that small , promising open-source players will be snapped up by bigger fish this year .
And Google 's relationship to Android gets ever murkier as it sinks its commercial hooks deeper into the platform , billing its own offerings as superphones relative to other Android phones .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ruphus13 writes "While open source companies are legion, their acquisitions by proprietary source companies may cause concern for the viability of projects.
Can a FOSS project 'survive' an acquisition?
According to the article posing that question: 'One has to ask, though, how healthy it is for increasingly important open-source platforms and applications to come under the wing of huge, proprietary software companies.
Probably the best example to cite on that topic is the ongoing car crash that is Oracle’s proposed acquisition of Sun Microsystems...Sun Micrososytems is one of only three big, US public companies focused almost entirely on open source.
If it gets swallowed up, that will leave just Red Hat and Novell.
Open-source pundits are predicting that small, promising open-source players will be snapped up by bigger fish this year.
And Google's relationship to Android gets ever murkier as it sinks its commercial hooks deeper into the platform, billing its own offerings as superphones relative to other Android phones.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30678686</id>
	<title>correct me if i'm wrong, but...</title>
	<author>yanyan</author>
	<datestamp>1262795760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Correct me if i'm wrong, but doesn't IBM put a lot of focus on developing and promoting open source? And last i checked they're a bigger company than Sun and Novell combined. As for Novell, who takes their open source work seriously in light of their ties with Microsoft and the associated legal landmine?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Correct me if i 'm wrong , but does n't IBM put a lot of focus on developing and promoting open source ?
And last i checked they 're a bigger company than Sun and Novell combined .
As for Novell , who takes their open source work seriously in light of their ties with Microsoft and the associated legal landmine ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Correct me if i'm wrong, but doesn't IBM put a lot of focus on developing and promoting open source?
And last i checked they're a bigger company than Sun and Novell combined.
As for Novell, who takes their open source work seriously in light of their ties with Microsoft and the associated legal landmine?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30680684</id>
	<title>Re:What does "Acquire" mean?</title>
	<author>JohnBailey</author>
	<datestamp>1262866200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Ya know, there's never been a case where a copyright owner has been required to honor a "perpetual" license grant.

It hasn't been tested with a proprietary license, let alone the GPL.</p></div><p>So are you saying that copyright over rules license conditions? You might want to sit down and think abotu that for a bit..</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ya know , there 's never been a case where a copyright owner has been required to honor a " perpetual " license grant .
It has n't been tested with a proprietary license , let alone the GPL.So are you saying that copyright over rules license conditions ?
You might want to sit down and think abotu that for a bit. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ya know, there's never been a case where a copyright owner has been required to honor a "perpetual" license grant.
It hasn't been tested with a proprietary license, let alone the GPL.So are you saying that copyright over rules license conditions?
You might want to sit down and think abotu that for a bit..
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30679236</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30679064</id>
	<title>Re:What does "Acquire" mean?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262799540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yep I was on a project that "Acquire" just meant allowing them to use our name and they pumped some money into us.  Of course the added meetings weren't too fun.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yep I was on a project that " Acquire " just meant allowing them to use our name and they pumped some money into us .
Of course the added meetings were n't too fun .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yep I was on a project that "Acquire" just meant allowing them to use our name and they pumped some money into us.
Of course the added meetings weren't too fun.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30678668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30679736</id>
	<title>How about no?</title>
	<author>symbolset</author>
	<datestamp>1262807940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Open source is a process where I write code to scratch my itch and out of the generousness of my heart set my code for itch scratching free for use and modification by others.  Other people have a similar itch to mine, but not quite the same - and adapt my code to their needs.  In time when my itch has erupted into full blown psoriasis I find they've turned my itch scratcher into a cure and so I get in the end the benefit not just of my own effort but also of theirs.
</p><p>If from experience I can predict the outcome from my own contribution I'm not even being generous -- I'm being as greedy as I can be by leveraging the power of a global network of thinkers to solve my problems present and future, for free.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Open source is a process where I write code to scratch my itch and out of the generousness of my heart set my code for itch scratching free for use and modification by others .
Other people have a similar itch to mine , but not quite the same - and adapt my code to their needs .
In time when my itch has erupted into full blown psoriasis I find they 've turned my itch scratcher into a cure and so I get in the end the benefit not just of my own effort but also of theirs .
If from experience I can predict the outcome from my own contribution I 'm not even being generous -- I 'm being as greedy as I can be by leveraging the power of a global network of thinkers to solve my problems present and future , for free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Open source is a process where I write code to scratch my itch and out of the generousness of my heart set my code for itch scratching free for use and modification by others.
Other people have a similar itch to mine, but not quite the same - and adapt my code to their needs.
In time when my itch has erupted into full blown psoriasis I find they've turned my itch scratcher into a cure and so I get in the end the benefit not just of my own effort but also of theirs.
If from experience I can predict the outcome from my own contribution I'm not even being generous -- I'm being as greedy as I can be by leveraging the power of a global network of thinkers to solve my problems present and future, for free.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30678710</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30679526</id>
	<title>Double-Edged Sword</title>
	<author>i58</author>
	<datestamp>1262804880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It cuts both ways. It's both good and bad. Yes, corporate ownership is a great thing, and it speaks well that companies such as IBM, Sun, Google, and Oracle show interest in open source. It may help suit and tie wearers to understand that open source != hobby quality software. But on the down side, if big company decides that it's roadmap for former open source project is where it's going, regardless of the desires of the users, well it could sour people on the product pretty quick. Even though it's open source still, the product could be forced don a path it's users don't want. Replace the community with a pair of corporate blinders and it's a problem.

Sure you can fork and all that jazz. Nothing is the end really, but corporate acquisition can be a boon or a thorn for people that just want to use a product. Depending on the product, your user base may be mostly "users" anyway. I'm no expert, but I'd imagine *successfully* forking something like MySQL isn't something you could just do overnight. There's way more to forking than just checking in the code.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It cuts both ways .
It 's both good and bad .
Yes , corporate ownership is a great thing , and it speaks well that companies such as IBM , Sun , Google , and Oracle show interest in open source .
It may help suit and tie wearers to understand that open source ! = hobby quality software .
But on the down side , if big company decides that it 's roadmap for former open source project is where it 's going , regardless of the desires of the users , well it could sour people on the product pretty quick .
Even though it 's open source still , the product could be forced don a path it 's users do n't want .
Replace the community with a pair of corporate blinders and it 's a problem .
Sure you can fork and all that jazz .
Nothing is the end really , but corporate acquisition can be a boon or a thorn for people that just want to use a product .
Depending on the product , your user base may be mostly " users " anyway .
I 'm no expert , but I 'd imagine * successfully * forking something like MySQL is n't something you could just do overnight .
There 's way more to forking than just checking in the code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It cuts both ways.
It's both good and bad.
Yes, corporate ownership is a great thing, and it speaks well that companies such as IBM, Sun, Google, and Oracle show interest in open source.
It may help suit and tie wearers to understand that open source != hobby quality software.
But on the down side, if big company decides that it's roadmap for former open source project is where it's going, regardless of the desires of the users, well it could sour people on the product pretty quick.
Even though it's open source still, the product could be forced don a path it's users don't want.
Replace the community with a pair of corporate blinders and it's a problem.
Sure you can fork and all that jazz.
Nothing is the end really, but corporate acquisition can be a boon or a thorn for people that just want to use a product.
Depending on the product, your user base may be mostly "users" anyway.
I'm no expert, but I'd imagine *successfully* forking something like MySQL isn't something you could just do overnight.
There's way more to forking than just checking in the code.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30679078</id>
	<title>It's best for OSS when it can make a profit</title>
	<author>cnewman</author>
	<datestamp>1262799720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Under Sun Microsystems, a company that was having a hard time making a profit, open source projects fared badly.  Staff were cut across the company, including administrative, QA and lab support staff.  When all the support staff go, the software developers gets loaded down with all that extra non-development work and they'll eventually leave too, no matter how "nice" or "friendly" the company is to open source.  An attitude like "let's open source now and figure out how to make money later" is a recipe for failure.</p><p>Under Oracle, things may or may not fare better.  It depends if Oracle can come up with a way to make money off of support, services and add-ons for open source.  If they do, then they'll continue to invest and the OSS will do well (as it did with Oracle's acquisition of Sleepycat / Berkeley DB).  If they don't, then the project may not fare well (as some claim happened with InnoDB).  I know some OSS fans find a way to get a foundation or edu paycheck, but those are few and far between.  I like a corporate paycheck and that means there has to be a way to make money from OSS or I won't get paid to work on it.  There is ample proof that OSS development can be profitable as RedHat shows, but there needs to be a business plan to pay for ongoing development.</p><p>Frankly, I'm more concerned by the loss of key Mozilla NSS developer time due to the Oracle acquisition than I am concerned about MySQL's future.  Any ideas on a business plan to make money from NSS out there?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Under Sun Microsystems , a company that was having a hard time making a profit , open source projects fared badly .
Staff were cut across the company , including administrative , QA and lab support staff .
When all the support staff go , the software developers gets loaded down with all that extra non-development work and they 'll eventually leave too , no matter how " nice " or " friendly " the company is to open source .
An attitude like " let 's open source now and figure out how to make money later " is a recipe for failure.Under Oracle , things may or may not fare better .
It depends if Oracle can come up with a way to make money off of support , services and add-ons for open source .
If they do , then they 'll continue to invest and the OSS will do well ( as it did with Oracle 's acquisition of Sleepycat / Berkeley DB ) .
If they do n't , then the project may not fare well ( as some claim happened with InnoDB ) .
I know some OSS fans find a way to get a foundation or edu paycheck , but those are few and far between .
I like a corporate paycheck and that means there has to be a way to make money from OSS or I wo n't get paid to work on it .
There is ample proof that OSS development can be profitable as RedHat shows , but there needs to be a business plan to pay for ongoing development.Frankly , I 'm more concerned by the loss of key Mozilla NSS developer time due to the Oracle acquisition than I am concerned about MySQL 's future .
Any ideas on a business plan to make money from NSS out there ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Under Sun Microsystems, a company that was having a hard time making a profit, open source projects fared badly.
Staff were cut across the company, including administrative, QA and lab support staff.
When all the support staff go, the software developers gets loaded down with all that extra non-development work and they'll eventually leave too, no matter how "nice" or "friendly" the company is to open source.
An attitude like "let's open source now and figure out how to make money later" is a recipe for failure.Under Oracle, things may or may not fare better.
It depends if Oracle can come up with a way to make money off of support, services and add-ons for open source.
If they do, then they'll continue to invest and the OSS will do well (as it did with Oracle's acquisition of Sleepycat / Berkeley DB).
If they don't, then the project may not fare well (as some claim happened with InnoDB).
I know some OSS fans find a way to get a foundation or edu paycheck, but those are few and far between.
I like a corporate paycheck and that means there has to be a way to make money from OSS or I won't get paid to work on it.
There is ample proof that OSS development can be profitable as RedHat shows, but there needs to be a business plan to pay for ongoing development.Frankly, I'm more concerned by the loss of key Mozilla NSS developer time due to the Oracle acquisition than I am concerned about MySQL's future.
Any ideas on a business plan to make money from NSS out there?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30679338</id>
	<title>Re:What does "Acquire" mean?</title>
	<author>symbolset</author>
	<datestamp>1262802540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's an interesting point.
</p><p>Let's ignore for a moment that "perpetual" is moot because copyrights are only granted for "limited times," and so "perpetual licenses" are not possible.  Licenses to the use of copyrighted material can only be for as long as the duration of the copyright.
</p><p>So who would stand up to defend the "perpetual" nature of indefinitely temporally defined licenses.  Let's see, there's the MPAA, the RIAA, Microsoft, and every other major corporation that's built their business on this principle.  FOSS has nothing to worry about in this regard.  I seriously doubt some lawyer could stand up in court and say that licenses are implicitly not for the duration of the copyright without some serious opposition.  It would be an interesting fight, though.  Might the heirs of long dead authors and artists win back control of their ancestral works in this way?  As copyright lengthens from six to sixty generations we may see this fight some day.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's an interesting point .
Let 's ignore for a moment that " perpetual " is moot because copyrights are only granted for " limited times , " and so " perpetual licenses " are not possible .
Licenses to the use of copyrighted material can only be for as long as the duration of the copyright .
So who would stand up to defend the " perpetual " nature of indefinitely temporally defined licenses .
Let 's see , there 's the MPAA , the RIAA , Microsoft , and every other major corporation that 's built their business on this principle .
FOSS has nothing to worry about in this regard .
I seriously doubt some lawyer could stand up in court and say that licenses are implicitly not for the duration of the copyright without some serious opposition .
It would be an interesting fight , though .
Might the heirs of long dead authors and artists win back control of their ancestral works in this way ?
As copyright lengthens from six to sixty generations we may see this fight some day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's an interesting point.
Let's ignore for a moment that "perpetual" is moot because copyrights are only granted for "limited times," and so "perpetual licenses" are not possible.
Licenses to the use of copyrighted material can only be for as long as the duration of the copyright.
So who would stand up to defend the "perpetual" nature of indefinitely temporally defined licenses.
Let's see, there's the MPAA, the RIAA, Microsoft, and every other major corporation that's built their business on this principle.
FOSS has nothing to worry about in this regard.
I seriously doubt some lawyer could stand up in court and say that licenses are implicitly not for the duration of the copyright without some serious opposition.
It would be an interesting fight, though.
Might the heirs of long dead authors and artists win back control of their ancestral works in this way?
As copyright lengthens from six to sixty generations we may see this fight some day.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30679236</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30678798</id>
	<title>Let the market decide</title>
	<author>cryfreedomlove</author>
	<datestamp>1262796660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is a natural ebb and flow to this driven by market forces.  The value system is primarily driven by users of the open projects.  If Oracle abuses mySQL enough then it will be forked by natural and unstoppable force.  I'm not worried at all.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a natural ebb and flow to this driven by market forces .
The value system is primarily driven by users of the open projects .
If Oracle abuses mySQL enough then it will be forked by natural and unstoppable force .
I 'm not worried at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a natural ebb and flow to this driven by market forces.
The value system is primarily driven by users of the open projects.
If Oracle abuses mySQL enough then it will be forked by natural and unstoppable force.
I'm not worried at all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30678706</id>
	<title>If by "good" you mean</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262795940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If by "good" you mean "good because it ceases to be a FOSS project," then yeah.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If by " good " you mean " good because it ceases to be a FOSS project , " then yeah .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If by "good" you mean "good because it ceases to be a FOSS project," then yeah.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30683396</id>
	<title>Re:please tell us your real agenda.</title>
	<author>Just Some Guy</author>
	<datestamp>1262883960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>why must this be seen as a threat to OSS? because stallman says so?</p></div><p>WTF are you on about? The same RMS who says "<a href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html" title="gnu.org">we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can</a> [gnu.org]"? I don't think you understand the whole concept of Free Software.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>why must this be seen as a threat to OSS ?
because stallman says so ? WTF are you on about ?
The same RMS who says " we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can [ gnu.org ] " ?
I do n't think you understand the whole concept of Free Software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>why must this be seen as a threat to OSS?
because stallman says so?WTF are you on about?
The same RMS who says "we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can [gnu.org]"?
I don't think you understand the whole concept of Free Software.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30678712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30679020</id>
	<title>I wouldn't mind...</title>
	<author>IANAAC</author>
	<datestamp>1262799000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wouldn't mind seeing MySQL die.
<p>
Well, I shouldn't say die.  I *DO* wish that it'd conform a bit more with the SQL standard though.
</p><p>
Now donning my flame-retardant suit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would n't mind seeing MySQL die .
Well , I should n't say die .
I * DO * wish that it 'd conform a bit more with the SQL standard though .
Now donning my flame-retardant suit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wouldn't mind seeing MySQL die.
Well, I shouldn't say die.
I *DO* wish that it'd conform a bit more with the SQL standard though.
Now donning my flame-retardant suit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30680622</id>
	<title>Re:What does "Acquire" mean?</title>
	<author>jonbryce</author>
	<datestamp>1262864880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sun does own the IP, because it is the only company that is allowed to sell non-free copies of MySQL.  MySQL's business model is to sell non-free copies to people who don't want to run OSS for whatever reason and use that money to pay for development, so this is very important, and why it isn't so easy to fork the project.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sun does own the IP , because it is the only company that is allowed to sell non-free copies of MySQL .
MySQL 's business model is to sell non-free copies to people who do n't want to run OSS for whatever reason and use that money to pay for development , so this is very important , and why it is n't so easy to fork the project .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sun does own the IP, because it is the only company that is allowed to sell non-free copies of MySQL.
MySQL's business model is to sell non-free copies to people who don't want to run OSS for whatever reason and use that money to pay for development, so this is very important, and why it isn't so easy to fork the project.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30678668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30678826</id>
	<title>OSS projects should not be owned by companies</title>
	<author>ajung</author>
	<datestamp>1262796840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>An OSS project is only in danger if there is project is backed only by commercial companies. OSS projects driven by a community and backed by some foundation (e.g. Zope foundation, Plone foundation, Python foundation) are unlikely in such a danger.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>An OSS project is only in danger if there is project is backed only by commercial companies .
OSS projects driven by a community and backed by some foundation ( e.g .
Zope foundation , Plone foundation , Python foundation ) are unlikely in such a danger .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An OSS project is only in danger if there is project is backed only by commercial companies.
OSS projects driven by a community and backed by some foundation (e.g.
Zope foundation, Plone foundation, Python foundation) are unlikely in such a danger.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30681966</id>
	<title>Re:OSS projects should not be owned by companies</title>
	<author>roderickm</author>
	<datestamp>1262877660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's crazy talk. There are many threats to the health and vibrancy of an open source project, and being backed by a commercial company is not a reliable indicator of danger.</p><p>Consider the behavior of the project maintainers and planners. Do they engage the community on key issues? Do they accept outside contributions? How are conflicts resolved?</p><p>The issue isn't who funds the developers, but the attitudes and behaviors of project leadership.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's crazy talk .
There are many threats to the health and vibrancy of an open source project , and being backed by a commercial company is not a reliable indicator of danger.Consider the behavior of the project maintainers and planners .
Do they engage the community on key issues ?
Do they accept outside contributions ?
How are conflicts resolved ? The issue is n't who funds the developers , but the attitudes and behaviors of project leadership .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's crazy talk.
There are many threats to the health and vibrancy of an open source project, and being backed by a commercial company is not a reliable indicator of danger.Consider the behavior of the project maintainers and planners.
Do they engage the community on key issues?
Do they accept outside contributions?
How are conflicts resolved?The issue isn't who funds the developers, but the attitudes and behaviors of project leadership.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30678826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30680304</id>
	<title>Xen and Amanda</title>
	<author>Antique Geekmeister</author>
	<datestamp>1262860380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Other projects include Xen virtual software (where the parent company, Xensource, was bought by Citrix.) It was very exciting for a while there, but I'm seeing the leading edge Linux users turn to KVM and the corporate users stick with VMWare, not realizing the problems of the server hardware and VMWare's ancient 2.4 kernel. I'm not sure why: I've not had the opportunity to do side-by-side comparisons with the latest versions of all of them.</p><p>The Amanda backup software has been taken up by Zmanda, who have apparently destabilized it in the midst of trying to add glitzy GUI's to it which they sell only as corporate add-ons and which have caused two companies I know to throw it out, not because the Amanda was not fast and functional, but because the admins handed the backup management couldn't figure out the GUI and configure things properly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Other projects include Xen virtual software ( where the parent company , Xensource , was bought by Citrix .
) It was very exciting for a while there , but I 'm seeing the leading edge Linux users turn to KVM and the corporate users stick with VMWare , not realizing the problems of the server hardware and VMWare 's ancient 2.4 kernel .
I 'm not sure why : I 've not had the opportunity to do side-by-side comparisons with the latest versions of all of them.The Amanda backup software has been taken up by Zmanda , who have apparently destabilized it in the midst of trying to add glitzy GUI 's to it which they sell only as corporate add-ons and which have caused two companies I know to throw it out , not because the Amanda was not fast and functional , but because the admins handed the backup management could n't figure out the GUI and configure things properly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Other projects include Xen virtual software (where the parent company, Xensource, was bought by Citrix.
) It was very exciting for a while there, but I'm seeing the leading edge Linux users turn to KVM and the corporate users stick with VMWare, not realizing the problems of the server hardware and VMWare's ancient 2.4 kernel.
I'm not sure why: I've not had the opportunity to do side-by-side comparisons with the latest versions of all of them.The Amanda backup software has been taken up by Zmanda, who have apparently destabilized it in the midst of trying to add glitzy GUI's to it which they sell only as corporate add-ons and which have caused two companies I know to throw it out, not because the Amanda was not fast and functional, but because the admins handed the backup management couldn't figure out the GUI and configure things properly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30678796</id>
	<title>disappointingly useless article</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262796660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree it's an interesting question: how do open-source projects fare when acquired by companies that mainly focus on proprietary software?</p><p>But the article doesn't usefully attempt to answer that question. It doesn't survey major projects that have been thus acquired, giving us details on the pros and cons each encountered, how many flourished, failed, stagnated, or were unaffected, etc. It doesn't try to figure out what the reasons for success or failure might be. It doesn't really do <i>any</i> analysis.</p><p>It just asks the question, rambles on a bit, cites the one single example of MySQL's role in the Oracle acquisition (<i>which hasn't even happened yet</i>), and then we're done. Boring.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree it 's an interesting question : how do open-source projects fare when acquired by companies that mainly focus on proprietary software ? But the article does n't usefully attempt to answer that question .
It does n't survey major projects that have been thus acquired , giving us details on the pros and cons each encountered , how many flourished , failed , stagnated , or were unaffected , etc .
It does n't try to figure out what the reasons for success or failure might be .
It does n't really do any analysis.It just asks the question , rambles on a bit , cites the one single example of MySQL 's role in the Oracle acquisition ( which has n't even happened yet ) , and then we 're done .
Boring .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree it's an interesting question: how do open-source projects fare when acquired by companies that mainly focus on proprietary software?But the article doesn't usefully attempt to answer that question.
It doesn't survey major projects that have been thus acquired, giving us details on the pros and cons each encountered, how many flourished, failed, stagnated, or were unaffected, etc.
It doesn't try to figure out what the reasons for success or failure might be.
It doesn't really do any analysis.It just asks the question, rambles on a bit, cites the one single example of MySQL's role in the Oracle acquisition (which hasn't even happened yet), and then we're done.
Boring.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30678704</id>
	<title>Errmmm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262795880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>"And Google's relationship to Android gets ever murkier as it sinks its commercial hooks deeper into the platform"<br> <br>Huh? They own it and made the vast vast majority of it, feel free to fork, that's what OSS is.... dunno how they could possibly be 'sinking its hooks' into the platform when it is their baby from the start... Be happy they have released source...</htmltext>
<tokenext>" And Google 's relationship to Android gets ever murkier as it sinks its commercial hooks deeper into the platform " Huh ?
They own it and made the vast vast majority of it , feel free to fork , that 's what OSS is.... dunno how they could possibly be 'sinking its hooks ' into the platform when it is their baby from the start... Be happy they have released source.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"And Google's relationship to Android gets ever murkier as it sinks its commercial hooks deeper into the platform" Huh?
They own it and made the vast vast majority of it, feel free to fork, that's what OSS is.... dunno how they could possibly be 'sinking its hooks' into the platform when it is their baby from the start... Be happy they have released source...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30679640</id>
	<title>Re:Why is OSS good?</title>
	<author>neiras</author>
	<datestamp>1262806620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I always thought I'd make a buck in this business because I consider myself a superior engineer, and I'd take that skill and use it to help a company create a product that other people don't have the skills to create. In short, I can't help but see open source as something that devalues software engineers.</p></div><p>You must be kidding. Are you suddenly an Inferior Superior Software Engineer if you use a tool that's freely available, or link to an open-source-licensed shared library? Most people don't have the skills to do that.</p><p>Or if there's an open-source clone of your company's software, surely there's nothing stopping your company from, er, <i>competing with it?</i> If your company were so threatened by that clone, surely they would want to hire and fill the pockets of many Superior Software Engineers to get them back on top?</p><p>Open source lets developers like myself stand on the shoulders of giants and make a really, really excellent living.</p><p>In return, I try to contribute wherever I can. I owe the community more than I'll ever be able to give back.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I always thought I 'd make a buck in this business because I consider myself a superior engineer , and I 'd take that skill and use it to help a company create a product that other people do n't have the skills to create .
In short , I ca n't help but see open source as something that devalues software engineers.You must be kidding .
Are you suddenly an Inferior Superior Software Engineer if you use a tool that 's freely available , or link to an open-source-licensed shared library ?
Most people do n't have the skills to do that.Or if there 's an open-source clone of your company 's software , surely there 's nothing stopping your company from , er , competing with it ?
If your company were so threatened by that clone , surely they would want to hire and fill the pockets of many Superior Software Engineers to get them back on top ? Open source lets developers like myself stand on the shoulders of giants and make a really , really excellent living.In return , I try to contribute wherever I can .
I owe the community more than I 'll ever be able to give back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I always thought I'd make a buck in this business because I consider myself a superior engineer, and I'd take that skill and use it to help a company create a product that other people don't have the skills to create.
In short, I can't help but see open source as something that devalues software engineers.You must be kidding.
Are you suddenly an Inferior Superior Software Engineer if you use a tool that's freely available, or link to an open-source-licensed shared library?
Most people don't have the skills to do that.Or if there's an open-source clone of your company's software, surely there's nothing stopping your company from, er, competing with it?
If your company were so threatened by that clone, surely they would want to hire and fill the pockets of many Superior Software Engineers to get them back on top?Open source lets developers like myself stand on the shoulders of giants and make a really, really excellent living.In return, I try to contribute wherever I can.
I owe the community more than I'll ever be able to give back.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30679464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30678868</id>
	<title>Re:What does "Acquire" mean?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262797260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Instead of wasting your time posting to Slashdot you should do a little research on: "the 1980s" and "branding".  Ruphus13 is biased; the real car crash here is the fallout from MySQL's asinine dual license three card monty.</p><p>(Monty. Ha! I make joke, yes?!)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Instead of wasting your time posting to Slashdot you should do a little research on : " the 1980s " and " branding " .
Ruphus13 is biased ; the real car crash here is the fallout from MySQL 's asinine dual license three card monty. ( Monty .
Ha ! I make joke , yes ? !
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Instead of wasting your time posting to Slashdot you should do a little research on: "the 1980s" and "branding".
Ruphus13 is biased; the real car crash here is the fallout from MySQL's asinine dual license three card monty.(Monty.
Ha! I make joke, yes?!
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30678668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30679930</id>
	<title>Re:Why is OSS good?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262896860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The proponents of open source don't understand a damn thing about economics, the business world or software development for that matter.  I wouldn't waste time trying have a rational discussion here because it is a religious issue. In fact open source is a lot like religion in that it requires a lot of faith but close examination reveals contrary evidence, just close your eyes and repeat "I believe" or you'll be torn apart as a heretic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The proponents of open source do n't understand a damn thing about economics , the business world or software development for that matter .
I would n't waste time trying have a rational discussion here because it is a religious issue .
In fact open source is a lot like religion in that it requires a lot of faith but close examination reveals contrary evidence , just close your eyes and repeat " I believe " or you 'll be torn apart as a heretic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The proponents of open source don't understand a damn thing about economics, the business world or software development for that matter.
I wouldn't waste time trying have a rational discussion here because it is a religious issue.
In fact open source is a lot like religion in that it requires a lot of faith but close examination reveals contrary evidence, just close your eyes and repeat "I believe" or you'll be torn apart as a heretic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30679464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30679654</id>
	<title>Company size</title>
	<author>symbolset</author>
	<datestamp>1262806800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Let's look for a company outside the usual group that's active in open source not for altruistic reasons, but for basic capitalistic reasons.  We need look no further than <a href="http://www.google.com/finance?q=TPE:2498" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">HTC</a> [google.com].  They make a lot of these Android devices, including Droid and Nexus One.  Their market capitalization today is $282B.  They're bigger than Microsoft or Apple or HP or IBM.  They don't have to care about these little squabbles and they don't.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's look for a company outside the usual group that 's active in open source not for altruistic reasons , but for basic capitalistic reasons .
We need look no further than HTC [ google.com ] .
They make a lot of these Android devices , including Droid and Nexus One .
Their market capitalization today is $ 282B .
They 're bigger than Microsoft or Apple or HP or IBM .
They do n't have to care about these little squabbles and they do n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's look for a company outside the usual group that's active in open source not for altruistic reasons, but for basic capitalistic reasons.
We need look no further than HTC [google.com].
They make a lot of these Android devices, including Droid and Nexus One.
Their market capitalization today is $282B.
They're bigger than Microsoft or Apple or HP or IBM.
They don't have to care about these little squabbles and they don't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30678686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30679084</id>
	<title>Re:What does "Acquire" mean?</title>
	<author>Thinboy00</author>
	<datestamp>1262799780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OP's point is still valid; MySQL is merely a bad example.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OP 's point is still valid ; MySQL is merely a bad example .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OP's point is still valid; MySQL is merely a bad example.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30678738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30680590</id>
	<title>Re:correct me if i'm wrong, but...</title>
	<author>harlows\_monkeys</author>
	<datestamp>1262864460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> As for Novell, who takes their open source work seriously in light of their ties with Microsoft and the associated legal landmine?</p></div><p>Well, for one, the large number of companies and developers who aren't afraid of imaginary legal landmines.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As for Novell , who takes their open source work seriously in light of their ties with Microsoft and the associated legal landmine ? Well , for one , the large number of companies and developers who are n't afraid of imaginary legal landmines .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> As for Novell, who takes their open source work seriously in light of their ties with Microsoft and the associated legal landmine?Well, for one, the large number of companies and developers who aren't afraid of imaginary legal landmines.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30678686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30680254</id>
	<title>Re:QT and Nokia</title>
	<author>Carewolf</author>
	<datestamp>1262859540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You also have to remember that Nokia had no choice of closing Qt because of the Free-Qt legal agreement it has with KDE. This meant any attempt to close-source Qt would release the last open-source version under BSD. This made embracing the advantages of open source the only viable business decision (or that the only purchasers of Trolltech would be the ones interested in keeping Qt open source).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You also have to remember that Nokia had no choice of closing Qt because of the Free-Qt legal agreement it has with KDE .
This meant any attempt to close-source Qt would release the last open-source version under BSD .
This made embracing the advantages of open source the only viable business decision ( or that the only purchasers of Trolltech would be the ones interested in keeping Qt open source ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You also have to remember that Nokia had no choice of closing Qt because of the Free-Qt legal agreement it has with KDE.
This meant any attempt to close-source Qt would release the last open-source version under BSD.
This made embracing the advantages of open source the only viable business decision (or that the only purchasers of Trolltech would be the ones interested in keeping Qt open source).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30679368</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30679236</id>
	<title>Re:What does "Acquire" mean?</title>
	<author>QuantumG</author>
	<datestamp>1262801400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The wording of the GPL is such that they can't take it back or whatever</p></div><p>Ya know, there's never been a case where a copyright owner has been required to honor a "perpetual" license grant.</p><p>It hasn't been tested with a proprietary license, let alone the GPL.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The wording of the GPL is such that they ca n't take it back or whateverYa know , there 's never been a case where a copyright owner has been required to honor a " perpetual " license grant.It has n't been tested with a proprietary license , let alone the GPL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The wording of the GPL is such that they can't take it back or whateverYa know, there's never been a case where a copyright owner has been required to honor a "perpetual" license grant.It hasn't been tested with a proprietary license, let alone the GPL.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30678738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30679394</id>
	<title>Re:What does "Acquire" mean?</title>
	<author>LingNoi</author>
	<datestamp>1262803200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Which wouldn't make any difference even if they didn't own the IP. A GPL fork would still be necessary anyway and there's nothing wrong with forking. In fact I think forking would be good for mysql, then maybe some of the 3 to 4 year old bugs that people keep complaining about will get fixed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Which would n't make any difference even if they did n't own the IP .
A GPL fork would still be necessary anyway and there 's nothing wrong with forking .
In fact I think forking would be good for mysql , then maybe some of the 3 to 4 year old bugs that people keep complaining about will get fixed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which wouldn't make any difference even if they didn't own the IP.
A GPL fork would still be necessary anyway and there's nothing wrong with forking.
In fact I think forking would be good for mysql, then maybe some of the 3 to 4 year old bugs that people keep complaining about will get fixed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30678738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30682572</id>
	<title>Re:"legion"</title>
	<author>Macthorpe</author>
	<datestamp>1262880780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just to add my voice to the Anonymous Cowards telling you to read a dictionary - go read a dictionary<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>In case you can't find one: that is a perfectly legitimate use of 'legion', probably originating from "I am Legion, because we are many" in the Bible. I'm sure some budding etymologist can put my reply to shame.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just to add my voice to the Anonymous Cowards telling you to read a dictionary - go read a dictionary : ) In case you ca n't find one : that is a perfectly legitimate use of 'legion ' , probably originating from " I am Legion , because we are many " in the Bible .
I 'm sure some budding etymologist can put my reply to shame .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just to add my voice to the Anonymous Cowards telling you to read a dictionary - go read a dictionary :)In case you can't find one: that is a perfectly legitimate use of 'legion', probably originating from "I am Legion, because we are many" in the Bible.
I'm sure some budding etymologist can put my reply to shame.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30678898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30678712</id>
	<title>please tell us your real agenda.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262796000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The agenda of this seems to be "omg big companies are the devil" nonsense. why must this be seen as a threat to OSS? because stallman says so? one of the biggest fails of open source is it's lack of reliable support or response to customer deamnds, if more big names jump on board an throw money at developers it'll only help OSS.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The agenda of this seems to be " omg big companies are the devil " nonsense .
why must this be seen as a threat to OSS ?
because stallman says so ?
one of the biggest fails of open source is it 's lack of reliable support or response to customer deamnds , if more big names jump on board an throw money at developers it 'll only help OSS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The agenda of this seems to be "omg big companies are the devil" nonsense.
why must this be seen as a threat to OSS?
because stallman says so?
one of the biggest fails of open source is it's lack of reliable support or response to customer deamnds, if more big names jump on board an throw money at developers it'll only help OSS.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30678702</id>
	<title>Apple fanbois anyone?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262795880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt;&gt;  And Google's relationship to Android gets ever murkier as it sinks its commercial hooks deeper into the platform, billing its own offerings as superphones relative to other Android phones.'
<br> <br>Wow! Apple fanbois anyone?</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; And Google 's relationship to Android gets ever murkier as it sinks its commercial hooks deeper into the platform , billing its own offerings as superphones relative to other Android phones .
' Wow !
Apple fanbois anyone ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;  And Google's relationship to Android gets ever murkier as it sinks its commercial hooks deeper into the platform, billing its own offerings as superphones relative to other Android phones.
'
 Wow!
Apple fanbois anyone?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30678668</id>
	<title>What does "Acquire" mean?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262795580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How does a firm "acquire" an OSS project? Look at mysql, All Sun did was pay money for a name, bunch of workers and a customer list, not the actual IP, cause that was open sourced to begin with.</p><p>In short, if a company "acquires" (whatever that means in this context) an OSS project, and you're not happy with how things are being done, fork the project and be on your way, Otherwise learn to drink the coolade like everyone else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How does a firm " acquire " an OSS project ?
Look at mysql , All Sun did was pay money for a name , bunch of workers and a customer list , not the actual IP , cause that was open sourced to begin with.In short , if a company " acquires " ( whatever that means in this context ) an OSS project , and you 're not happy with how things are being done , fork the project and be on your way , Otherwise learn to drink the coolade like everyone else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How does a firm "acquire" an OSS project?
Look at mysql, All Sun did was pay money for a name, bunch of workers and a customer list, not the actual IP, cause that was open sourced to begin with.In short, if a company "acquires" (whatever that means in this context) an OSS project, and you're not happy with how things are being done, fork the project and be on your way, Otherwise learn to drink the coolade like everyone else.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30678898</id>
	<title>"legion"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262797620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What does it mean when someone is "legion"? Go Slashdot quality!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What does it mean when someone is " legion " ?
Go Slashdot quality !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What does it mean when someone is "legion"?
Go Slashdot quality!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30679464</id>
	<title>Why is OSS good?</title>
	<author>Pro923</author>
	<datestamp>1262803980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've been struggling lately to understand why I should believe that Open Source projects are a good thing for a business that wants to profit, and also for a talented developer (such as myself) that wants to make some money in his career.

From a company point of view, when you decide to market a product that's based on open source, it would seem that you're saying - my company isn't going to provide value based in software that any other company can't deliver.  I see this as leading to products that rely on support contracts and a strong sales force in order to be profitable.  Is this really a winning idea?  What ever happened to the idea of building a product that is successful because it's simply better than the competition's product?  I can't help but see open source as a path to mediocrity.  Along the lines of the article - why would a large company buy a small company that has it's technology based in open source?  What do you gain by paying for something that you already get for free?

As a talented developer, I see open source as a bad thing - it reduces the value of a developer.  Writing good software is hard - not a lot of people can do it.  Again, why does a company want to pay for top notch developers when that same developer can contribute to it's products while someone else foots the bill?  If an open source product is a companies bread and butter, and the strategy is to make money off of support contracts, well doesn't a developer just become more or less a bug fixer?  In that world, if success is based upon who gives the best support, a developer is really support for support.

I always thought I'd make a buck in this business because I consider myself a superior engineer, and I'd take that skill and use it to help a company create a product that other people don't have the skills to create.  In short, I can't help but see open source as something that devalues software engineers.  Tell me why I'm wrong.  Explain why other professions don't go out of their way to make the product of their hard work 'free'.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been struggling lately to understand why I should believe that Open Source projects are a good thing for a business that wants to profit , and also for a talented developer ( such as myself ) that wants to make some money in his career .
From a company point of view , when you decide to market a product that 's based on open source , it would seem that you 're saying - my company is n't going to provide value based in software that any other company ca n't deliver .
I see this as leading to products that rely on support contracts and a strong sales force in order to be profitable .
Is this really a winning idea ?
What ever happened to the idea of building a product that is successful because it 's simply better than the competition 's product ?
I ca n't help but see open source as a path to mediocrity .
Along the lines of the article - why would a large company buy a small company that has it 's technology based in open source ?
What do you gain by paying for something that you already get for free ?
As a talented developer , I see open source as a bad thing - it reduces the value of a developer .
Writing good software is hard - not a lot of people can do it .
Again , why does a company want to pay for top notch developers when that same developer can contribute to it 's products while someone else foots the bill ?
If an open source product is a companies bread and butter , and the strategy is to make money off of support contracts , well does n't a developer just become more or less a bug fixer ?
In that world , if success is based upon who gives the best support , a developer is really support for support .
I always thought I 'd make a buck in this business because I consider myself a superior engineer , and I 'd take that skill and use it to help a company create a product that other people do n't have the skills to create .
In short , I ca n't help but see open source as something that devalues software engineers .
Tell me why I 'm wrong .
Explain why other professions do n't go out of their way to make the product of their hard work 'free' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been struggling lately to understand why I should believe that Open Source projects are a good thing for a business that wants to profit, and also for a talented developer (such as myself) that wants to make some money in his career.
From a company point of view, when you decide to market a product that's based on open source, it would seem that you're saying - my company isn't going to provide value based in software that any other company can't deliver.
I see this as leading to products that rely on support contracts and a strong sales force in order to be profitable.
Is this really a winning idea?
What ever happened to the idea of building a product that is successful because it's simply better than the competition's product?
I can't help but see open source as a path to mediocrity.
Along the lines of the article - why would a large company buy a small company that has it's technology based in open source?
What do you gain by paying for something that you already get for free?
As a talented developer, I see open source as a bad thing - it reduces the value of a developer.
Writing good software is hard - not a lot of people can do it.
Again, why does a company want to pay for top notch developers when that same developer can contribute to it's products while someone else foots the bill?
If an open source product is a companies bread and butter, and the strategy is to make money off of support contracts, well doesn't a developer just become more or less a bug fixer?
In that world, if success is based upon who gives the best support, a developer is really support for support.
I always thought I'd make a buck in this business because I consider myself a superior engineer, and I'd take that skill and use it to help a company create a product that other people don't have the skills to create.
In short, I can't help but see open source as something that devalues software engineers.
Tell me why I'm wrong.
Explain why other professions don't go out of their way to make the product of their hard work 'free'.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30678738</id>
	<title>Re:What does "Acquire" mean?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262796180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>MySQL was careful to maintain copyright over the entire MySQL codebase, so Sun did, in fact, purchase the 'IP'.</p><p>The wording of the GPL is such that they can't take it back or whatever, but Oracle could continue to support proprietary versions and stop releasing updates to the GPL version (leaving the community to support themselves starting from the most up to date GPL release from MySQL/Sun/Oracle).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>MySQL was careful to maintain copyright over the entire MySQL codebase , so Sun did , in fact , purchase the 'IP'.The wording of the GPL is such that they ca n't take it back or whatever , but Oracle could continue to support proprietary versions and stop releasing updates to the GPL version ( leaving the community to support themselves starting from the most up to date GPL release from MySQL/Sun/Oracle ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MySQL was careful to maintain copyright over the entire MySQL codebase, so Sun did, in fact, purchase the 'IP'.The wording of the GPL is such that they can't take it back or whatever, but Oracle could continue to support proprietary versions and stop releasing updates to the GPL version (leaving the community to support themselves starting from the most up to date GPL release from MySQL/Sun/Oracle).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30678668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30678940</id>
	<title>Re:"legion"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262798160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>English, m-f, do you speak it?</p><p>"As long as single one of us stands, we are legion." - Kain</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>English , m-f , do you speak it ?
" As long as single one of us stands , we are legion .
" - Kain</tokentext>
<sentencetext>English, m-f, do you speak it?
"As long as single one of us stands, we are legion.
" - Kain</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30678898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30678710</id>
	<title>No.</title>
	<author>LostCluster</author>
	<datestamp>1262795940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Open source is a concept where people get together write code to solve a common problem they have... they understand that they will not directly profit from the coding, although they may be seen as experts in whatever area their project is in, and they can then profit selling hardware, consulting on implementations, and other things.</p><p>If a company hires away all the programmers and then have them do something else so they don't contribute anymore, the project either is frozen, or new developers fork the project away from the original developers and the project moves on...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Open source is a concept where people get together write code to solve a common problem they have... they understand that they will not directly profit from the coding , although they may be seen as experts in whatever area their project is in , and they can then profit selling hardware , consulting on implementations , and other things.If a company hires away all the programmers and then have them do something else so they do n't contribute anymore , the project either is frozen , or new developers fork the project away from the original developers and the project moves on.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Open source is a concept where people get together write code to solve a common problem they have... they understand that they will not directly profit from the coding, although they may be seen as experts in whatever area their project is in, and they can then profit selling hardware, consulting on implementations, and other things.If a company hires away all the programmers and then have them do something else so they don't contribute anymore, the project either is frozen, or new developers fork the project away from the original developers and the project moves on...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30678792</id>
	<title>I missed the memo about IBM</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262796660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Is IBM no longer a big US company?
</p><p>
I believe that their focus on open source is at least as substantial as Sun's every was.
</p><p>
I really can't believe this FUD is taking hold.  So what if a company funds an open source project?
</p><p>
If they do something nasty, fork the project.  If nobody can be arsed to fork it then it clearly wasn't such a big deal.  There's NO downside here.  If they stop funding development completely it's still better than never funding it at all.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is IBM no longer a big US company ?
I believe that their focus on open source is at least as substantial as Sun 's every was .
I really ca n't believe this FUD is taking hold .
So what if a company funds an open source project ?
If they do something nasty , fork the project .
If nobody can be arsed to fork it then it clearly was n't such a big deal .
There 's NO downside here .
If they stop funding development completely it 's still better than never funding it at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Is IBM no longer a big US company?
I believe that their focus on open source is at least as substantial as Sun's every was.
I really can't believe this FUD is taking hold.
So what if a company funds an open source project?
If they do something nasty, fork the project.
If nobody can be arsed to fork it then it clearly wasn't such a big deal.
There's NO downside here.
If they stop funding development completely it's still better than never funding it at all.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30679638</id>
	<title>Wait, what?</title>
	<author>4e617474</author>
	<datestamp>1262806620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Novell, who had Microsoft sell their distro on the premise that Microsoft owned hunks of Linux is one of the last bastions of Open Source? Google gives lots of code away and sponsors events to get student developers to cut their teeth writing for Open Source projects, and it's scary that they're big bad proprietary guys getting their "commercial hooks deeper into" their own invention? And somehow the article title is the name of a Rod Stewart song about people judging the town tramp?!?!?!?!?!? Jeesh.  Things are murky enough without this guy trying to make it worse in hopes you keep coming back for the part where he sorts it all out for you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Novell , who had Microsoft sell their distro on the premise that Microsoft owned hunks of Linux is one of the last bastions of Open Source ?
Google gives lots of code away and sponsors events to get student developers to cut their teeth writing for Open Source projects , and it 's scary that they 're big bad proprietary guys getting their " commercial hooks deeper into " their own invention ?
And somehow the article title is the name of a Rod Stewart song about people judging the town tramp ? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ?
Jeesh. Things are murky enough without this guy trying to make it worse in hopes you keep coming back for the part where he sorts it all out for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Novell, who had Microsoft sell their distro on the premise that Microsoft owned hunks of Linux is one of the last bastions of Open Source?
Google gives lots of code away and sponsors events to get student developers to cut their teeth writing for Open Source projects, and it's scary that they're big bad proprietary guys getting their "commercial hooks deeper into" their own invention?
And somehow the article title is the name of a Rod Stewart song about people judging the town tramp?!?!?!?!?!?
Jeesh.  Things are murky enough without this guy trying to make it worse in hopes you keep coming back for the part where he sorts it all out for you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30679188</id>
	<title>Re:I missed the memo about IBM</title>
	<author>Lunix Nutcase</author>
	<datestamp>1262800920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IBM might be a big US company but it is hardly focused "almost entirely" on open source.  Pretty much all of their hardware is proprietary, their own Unix is proprietary, they sell all sorts of proprietary tools like Lotus Notes, ClearCase and the rest of the Rational tools, etc.  Sure you can point out a number of projects and things they work on and support that are open source, but those hardly make up even a significant portion of their portfolio.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IBM might be a big US company but it is hardly focused " almost entirely " on open source .
Pretty much all of their hardware is proprietary , their own Unix is proprietary , they sell all sorts of proprietary tools like Lotus Notes , ClearCase and the rest of the Rational tools , etc .
Sure you can point out a number of projects and things they work on and support that are open source , but those hardly make up even a significant portion of their portfolio .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IBM might be a big US company but it is hardly focused "almost entirely" on open source.
Pretty much all of their hardware is proprietary, their own Unix is proprietary, they sell all sorts of proprietary tools like Lotus Notes, ClearCase and the rest of the Rational tools, etc.
Sure you can point out a number of projects and things they work on and support that are open source, but those hardly make up even a significant portion of their portfolio.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30678792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30678864</id>
	<title>Project or Company?</title>
	<author>itomato</author>
	<datestamp>1262797260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If someone aquires your project, it's "good" - if the primary goal is recognition for your work.</p><p>If someone aquires your company, it's "good", in the traditional American Capitalist sense - if recognition and profit are your goals.</p><p>I have known and worked for companies whose primary goal was to be aquired.  Become profitable or successful in your own right, and let the reflection of your moral values tell you "good" or "bad".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If someone aquires your project , it 's " good " - if the primary goal is recognition for your work.If someone aquires your company , it 's " good " , in the traditional American Capitalist sense - if recognition and profit are your goals.I have known and worked for companies whose primary goal was to be aquired .
Become profitable or successful in your own right , and let the reflection of your moral values tell you " good " or " bad " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If someone aquires your project, it's "good" - if the primary goal is recognition for your work.If someone aquires your company, it's "good", in the traditional American Capitalist sense - if recognition and profit are your goals.I have known and worked for companies whose primary goal was to be aquired.
Become profitable or successful in your own right, and let the reflection of your moral values tell you "good" or "bad".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30679136</id>
	<title>Oracle RDB</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262800380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Digital sold RDB to Oracle, I suppose, about 15 years ago now. From that date you couldn't really buy RDB anymore. The value of RDB to Digital was the amount of money anybody would pay them to kill it. The same goes for OSS. If you develop a nice tool which competes with a commercial product, somebody may pay you to make it go away.</p><p>Is that good for a FOSS project? Depends on your POV. It could be very good for the copyright holders and their accountants, lawyers, ex wives, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Digital sold RDB to Oracle , I suppose , about 15 years ago now .
From that date you could n't really buy RDB anymore .
The value of RDB to Digital was the amount of money anybody would pay them to kill it .
The same goes for OSS .
If you develop a nice tool which competes with a commercial product , somebody may pay you to make it go away.Is that good for a FOSS project ?
Depends on your POV .
It could be very good for the copyright holders and their accountants , lawyers , ex wives , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Digital sold RDB to Oracle, I suppose, about 15 years ago now.
From that date you couldn't really buy RDB anymore.
The value of RDB to Digital was the amount of money anybody would pay them to kill it.
The same goes for OSS.
If you develop a nice tool which competes with a commercial product, somebody may pay you to make it go away.Is that good for a FOSS project?
Depends on your POV.
It could be very good for the copyright holders and their accountants, lawyers, ex wives, etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30679164</id>
	<title>Re:please tell us your real agenda.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262800560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm encouraged about writing popular open source software, hoping that I'll get grabbed up and paid to develop it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm encouraged about writing popular open source software , hoping that I 'll get grabbed up and paid to develop it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm encouraged about writing popular open source software, hoping that I'll get grabbed up and paid to develop it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30678712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30680640</id>
	<title>how open is open?</title>
	<author>StripedCow</author>
	<datestamp>1262865180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The real question, how "open" is an open source project?</p><p>If the code is one big spaghetti soup and there's virtually no documentation, then I'd say the project isn't really "open", and the "forkability" of the project is close to zero, as new developers aren't likely to pick up the project once its original developers get bought away... instead, in that case, it's more likely that new developers will stand up and write something new from scratch, although that may take a while of course.</p><p>On the other hand, if the code is structured well, with good documentation (not a machine-generated function-by-function reference, but also documentation on the conceptual level), where the documentation has been made commentable by the community, etc. etc., then such a project is much more viable.</p><p>Actually, I think someone should stand up and write some guidelines for good open-source projects to follow, and such guidelines can then also be used to rate open-source projects. Perhaps this is an idea for meta-sites such as freshmeat, sourceforge, googlecode, etc. (?)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The real question , how " open " is an open source project ? If the code is one big spaghetti soup and there 's virtually no documentation , then I 'd say the project is n't really " open " , and the " forkability " of the project is close to zero , as new developers are n't likely to pick up the project once its original developers get bought away... instead , in that case , it 's more likely that new developers will stand up and write something new from scratch , although that may take a while of course.On the other hand , if the code is structured well , with good documentation ( not a machine-generated function-by-function reference , but also documentation on the conceptual level ) , where the documentation has been made commentable by the community , etc .
etc. , then such a project is much more viable.Actually , I think someone should stand up and write some guidelines for good open-source projects to follow , and such guidelines can then also be used to rate open-source projects .
Perhaps this is an idea for meta-sites such as freshmeat , sourceforge , googlecode , etc .
( ? )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real question, how "open" is an open source project?If the code is one big spaghetti soup and there's virtually no documentation, then I'd say the project isn't really "open", and the "forkability" of the project is close to zero, as new developers aren't likely to pick up the project once its original developers get bought away... instead, in that case, it's more likely that new developers will stand up and write something new from scratch, although that may take a while of course.On the other hand, if the code is structured well, with good documentation (not a machine-generated function-by-function reference, but also documentation on the conceptual level), where the documentation has been made commentable by the community, etc.
etc., then such a project is much more viable.Actually, I think someone should stand up and write some guidelines for good open-source projects to follow, and such guidelines can then also be used to rate open-source projects.
Perhaps this is an idea for meta-sites such as freshmeat, sourceforge, googlecode, etc.
(?)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30679716</id>
	<title>Re:What does "Acquire" mean?</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1262807820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>How does a firm "acquire" an OSS project?</i> </p><p>The big corp has organization, money, discipline, manpower, material and technical resources of every kind.</p><p>The geek sees code - and that is too often all he sees.</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How does a firm " acquire " an OSS project ?
The big corp has organization , money , discipline , manpower , material and technical resources of every kind.The geek sees code - and that is too often all he sees .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>How does a firm "acquire" an OSS project?
The big corp has organization, money, discipline, manpower, material and technical resources of every kind.The geek sees code - and that is too often all he sees.
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30678668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30682050</id>
	<title>Re:disappointingly useless article</title>
	<author>design1066</author>
	<datestamp>1262878020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So true, so true.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So true , so true .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So true, so true.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30678796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30680466</id>
	<title>Separate issues</title>
	<author>cheros</author>
	<datestamp>1262862420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can see your point, but there are two separate angles you must consider.</p><p>A developer needs to stand out, and prove himself.  A contribution to an Open Source project creates credibility because not every code makes it into production, and the fact that you are confident of your skills to open up what you write helps too.  So it doesn't DIRECTLY make you money, it contributes to you snagging a better job or work order - it strengthens your negotiations.  It goes further, however, when you employed and know about Open Source, see next angle.</p><p>A company needs to operate as efficient as possible.  For this it needs software.  Software is never *just right*, it needs adapting - which means development work.  Let's take CMS as an example: you can spend budget X on a proprietary solution, or you can spend part of it on an Open Source CMS and then PAY THE DEVELOPERS or other people involved to add the bits you need for your own company.  The clever thing is then to push the changes back out to teh community because that gives you also marketing capital, but even if you don't you will get EXACTLY what you need for your own specific business, and still come in under the cost of proprietary solutions.</p><p>However, the original question was why a company wants to outright buy a FOSS product, and I must admit I'm a bit at a loss there.  It could be to gain complete control (thus losing the community benefits, which is what I see happening with Zimbra) and sell proprietary versions - I don't like that approach because that's really taking advantage of the work of others, or to actually take it off the market, which is what I see happening with MySQL to great chagrin of banks.  AFAIK, quite a lot of trading setups use MySQL because it's light and fast, it appears Postgresql cannot handle the large volume (that's what I was told, I'm no DB expert or coder).  OpenOffice came to be because SUN wanted to harm MS's revenue base, another argument.</p><p>So, I can see developer and company benefit to using FOSS, less so to buy a whole project..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can see your point , but there are two separate angles you must consider.A developer needs to stand out , and prove himself .
A contribution to an Open Source project creates credibility because not every code makes it into production , and the fact that you are confident of your skills to open up what you write helps too .
So it does n't DIRECTLY make you money , it contributes to you snagging a better job or work order - it strengthens your negotiations .
It goes further , however , when you employed and know about Open Source , see next angle.A company needs to operate as efficient as possible .
For this it needs software .
Software is never * just right * , it needs adapting - which means development work .
Let 's take CMS as an example : you can spend budget X on a proprietary solution , or you can spend part of it on an Open Source CMS and then PAY THE DEVELOPERS or other people involved to add the bits you need for your own company .
The clever thing is then to push the changes back out to teh community because that gives you also marketing capital , but even if you do n't you will get EXACTLY what you need for your own specific business , and still come in under the cost of proprietary solutions.However , the original question was why a company wants to outright buy a FOSS product , and I must admit I 'm a bit at a loss there .
It could be to gain complete control ( thus losing the community benefits , which is what I see happening with Zimbra ) and sell proprietary versions - I do n't like that approach because that 's really taking advantage of the work of others , or to actually take it off the market , which is what I see happening with MySQL to great chagrin of banks .
AFAIK , quite a lot of trading setups use MySQL because it 's light and fast , it appears Postgresql can not handle the large volume ( that 's what I was told , I 'm no DB expert or coder ) .
OpenOffice came to be because SUN wanted to harm MS 's revenue base , another argument.So , I can see developer and company benefit to using FOSS , less so to buy a whole project. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can see your point, but there are two separate angles you must consider.A developer needs to stand out, and prove himself.
A contribution to an Open Source project creates credibility because not every code makes it into production, and the fact that you are confident of your skills to open up what you write helps too.
So it doesn't DIRECTLY make you money, it contributes to you snagging a better job or work order - it strengthens your negotiations.
It goes further, however, when you employed and know about Open Source, see next angle.A company needs to operate as efficient as possible.
For this it needs software.
Software is never *just right*, it needs adapting - which means development work.
Let's take CMS as an example: you can spend budget X on a proprietary solution, or you can spend part of it on an Open Source CMS and then PAY THE DEVELOPERS or other people involved to add the bits you need for your own company.
The clever thing is then to push the changes back out to teh community because that gives you also marketing capital, but even if you don't you will get EXACTLY what you need for your own specific business, and still come in under the cost of proprietary solutions.However, the original question was why a company wants to outright buy a FOSS product, and I must admit I'm a bit at a loss there.
It could be to gain complete control (thus losing the community benefits, which is what I see happening with Zimbra) and sell proprietary versions - I don't like that approach because that's really taking advantage of the work of others, or to actually take it off the market, which is what I see happening with MySQL to great chagrin of banks.
AFAIK, quite a lot of trading setups use MySQL because it's light and fast, it appears Postgresql cannot handle the large volume (that's what I was told, I'm no DB expert or coder).
OpenOffice came to be because SUN wanted to harm MS's revenue base, another argument.So, I can see developer and company benefit to using FOSS, less so to buy a whole project..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30679464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30679368</id>
	<title>QT and Nokia</title>
	<author>fandingo</author>
	<datestamp>1262802780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nokia aquired QT about a year ago, and Nokia has added more free licenses (LGPL). I think that Nokia has done a tremendous job keeping QT free. It's available under the LGPL now; the most recent release, 4.6, saw the first community submissions. They are also a "KDE Patron."</p><p>Nokia does open source right.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nokia aquired QT about a year ago , and Nokia has added more free licenses ( LGPL ) .
I think that Nokia has done a tremendous job keeping QT free .
It 's available under the LGPL now ; the most recent release , 4.6 , saw the first community submissions .
They are also a " KDE Patron .
" Nokia does open source right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nokia aquired QT about a year ago, and Nokia has added more free licenses (LGPL).
I think that Nokia has done a tremendous job keeping QT free.
It's available under the LGPL now; the most recent release, 4.6, saw the first community submissions.
They are also a "KDE Patron.
"Nokia does open source right.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30678754</id>
	<title>Businesses like money</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262796420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>More on this breaking news story at 10...</p><p>But seriously, of course open-source contributions from for-profit organizations are going to come with strings attached. Whether this is in the form of it serving their own needs or if it's more of a PR exercise or whether they plan to directly monetize their contributions there's always a business reason for the choice (At least when it comes to successful businesses - I'm sure there's some small altruistic ones). But they are also going to be contributing, and typically when a business gets behind an open-source project like these they bring a level of resources that can be hard to get purely from the community.</p><p>Are the contributions worth the strings? Well... the beauty of open-source is that if you don't think it is you can always fork the project. The only thing that the "owner" of an open-source project really owns is the name/brand, the rest is owned by everybody. If they're really screwing it up with their business interests then surely you can get the support to start a branch of the product (Like the Open Android Alliance mentioned in TFA - they wanted to provide open-source non-proprietary alternatives to Google's android offerings so they just went and started doing it). The simple fact is in a capitalist world if contributing doesn't benefit businesses then they won't contribute, and in some cases we simply wouldn't have the related open-source product or it would be a mere shadow of what it has become with their support.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>More on this breaking news story at 10...But seriously , of course open-source contributions from for-profit organizations are going to come with strings attached .
Whether this is in the form of it serving their own needs or if it 's more of a PR exercise or whether they plan to directly monetize their contributions there 's always a business reason for the choice ( At least when it comes to successful businesses - I 'm sure there 's some small altruistic ones ) .
But they are also going to be contributing , and typically when a business gets behind an open-source project like these they bring a level of resources that can be hard to get purely from the community.Are the contributions worth the strings ?
Well... the beauty of open-source is that if you do n't think it is you can always fork the project .
The only thing that the " owner " of an open-source project really owns is the name/brand , the rest is owned by everybody .
If they 're really screwing it up with their business interests then surely you can get the support to start a branch of the product ( Like the Open Android Alliance mentioned in TFA - they wanted to provide open-source non-proprietary alternatives to Google 's android offerings so they just went and started doing it ) .
The simple fact is in a capitalist world if contributing does n't benefit businesses then they wo n't contribute , and in some cases we simply would n't have the related open-source product or it would be a mere shadow of what it has become with their support .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More on this breaking news story at 10...But seriously, of course open-source contributions from for-profit organizations are going to come with strings attached.
Whether this is in the form of it serving their own needs or if it's more of a PR exercise or whether they plan to directly monetize their contributions there's always a business reason for the choice (At least when it comes to successful businesses - I'm sure there's some small altruistic ones).
But they are also going to be contributing, and typically when a business gets behind an open-source project like these they bring a level of resources that can be hard to get purely from the community.Are the contributions worth the strings?
Well... the beauty of open-source is that if you don't think it is you can always fork the project.
The only thing that the "owner" of an open-source project really owns is the name/brand, the rest is owned by everybody.
If they're really screwing it up with their business interests then surely you can get the support to start a branch of the product (Like the Open Android Alliance mentioned in TFA - they wanted to provide open-source non-proprietary alternatives to Google's android offerings so they just went and started doing it).
The simple fact is in a capitalist world if contributing doesn't benefit businesses then they won't contribute, and in some cases we simply wouldn't have the related open-source product or it would be a mere shadow of what it has become with their support.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30678618</id>
	<title>FOSS is...</title>
	<author>TheKidWho</author>
	<datestamp>1262795220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FOSS is overrated anyways.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FOSS is overrated anyways .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FOSS is overrated anyways.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30680086</id>
	<title>Look at QT</title>
	<author>go-nix.ca</author>
	<datestamp>1262856360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So, Trolltech was acquired by Nokia, but, IIRC, Trolltech has a kind of licence for QT that contains something dramatically labelled a "poison clause", or something like that. It's designed to prevent ever changing the license to a proprietary one, thereby closing the code. I'm not sure how it's done, but this <a href="http://labs.trolltech.com/blogs/2008/01/19/qt-3-and-4-licensed-under-gplv3/" title="trolltech.com" rel="nofollow">blog post</a> [trolltech.com] may be related.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , Trolltech was acquired by Nokia , but , IIRC , Trolltech has a kind of licence for QT that contains something dramatically labelled a " poison clause " , or something like that .
It 's designed to prevent ever changing the license to a proprietary one , thereby closing the code .
I 'm not sure how it 's done , but this blog post [ trolltech.com ] may be related .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, Trolltech was acquired by Nokia, but, IIRC, Trolltech has a kind of licence for QT that contains something dramatically labelled a "poison clause", or something like that.
It's designed to prevent ever changing the license to a proprietary one, thereby closing the code.
I'm not sure how it's done, but this blog post [trolltech.com] may be related.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30679970</id>
	<title>Re:Why is OSS good?</title>
	<author>thetsguy</author>
	<datestamp>1262897460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Use OSS as you don't want to reinvent the Wheel. <br> <br>

Using existing pieces of code wherever possible would reduce your development cycle and earn you more money. <br>

In addition, the piece of code is tried and tested(most of the times) and if there is a problem you have all the freedom to fix it. <br>

Why not to use OSS should be the question.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Use OSS as you do n't want to reinvent the Wheel .
Using existing pieces of code wherever possible would reduce your development cycle and earn you more money .
In addition , the piece of code is tried and tested ( most of the times ) and if there is a problem you have all the freedom to fix it .
Why not to use OSS should be the question .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Use OSS as you don't want to reinvent the Wheel.
Using existing pieces of code wherever possible would reduce your development cycle and earn you more money.
In addition, the piece of code is tried and tested(most of the times) and if there is a problem you have all the freedom to fix it.
Why not to use OSS should be the question.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30679464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30679514</id>
	<title>Re:QT and Nokia</title>
	<author>Lunix Nutcase</author>
	<datestamp>1262804760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Nokia aquired QT about a year ago, and Nokia has added more free licenses (LGPL).</p> </div><p>Nokia acquired QuickTime and it released the code under the LGPL?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nokia aquired QT about a year ago , and Nokia has added more free licenses ( LGPL ) .
Nokia acquired QuickTime and it released the code under the LGPL ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nokia aquired QT about a year ago, and Nokia has added more free licenses (LGPL).
Nokia acquired QuickTime and it released the code under the LGPL?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30679368</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30678608</id>
	<title>Yay!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262795100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Your company will take on an international flavor when it's bought out. <br> <br>

You will remain in the shop, but only to cover for those lazy imcompetent Beaners, those stinky ass-backwards Indians, and those squinty thieving Chinks that your company just outsourced their bread and butter to.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your company will take on an international flavor when it 's bought out .
You will remain in the shop , but only to cover for those lazy imcompetent Beaners , those stinky ass-backwards Indians , and those squinty thieving Chinks that your company just outsourced their bread and butter to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your company will take on an international flavor when it's bought out.
You will remain in the shop, but only to cover for those lazy imcompetent Beaners, those stinky ass-backwards Indians, and those squinty thieving Chinks that your company just outsourced their bread and butter to.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30682728</id>
	<title>Re:Why is OSS good?</title>
	<author>Pro923</author>
	<datestamp>1262881560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thanks for replying, but no one really got my point...

I understand what's good about open source when it comes to a bunch of people collaborating and reusing code to all contribute and create something.

I don't understand how companies seeking profit and open source coexist - because it would seem to me that success would have to be based upon something other than the software itself.  My second point was to say that - as a software engineer, (about the superior, whatever I try to do I try to do well) why is the above good for me?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks for replying , but no one really got my point.. . I understand what 's good about open source when it comes to a bunch of people collaborating and reusing code to all contribute and create something .
I do n't understand how companies seeking profit and open source coexist - because it would seem to me that success would have to be based upon something other than the software itself .
My second point was to say that - as a software engineer , ( about the superior , whatever I try to do I try to do well ) why is the above good for me ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks for replying, but no one really got my point...

I understand what's good about open source when it comes to a bunch of people collaborating and reusing code to all contribute and create something.
I don't understand how companies seeking profit and open source coexist - because it would seem to me that success would have to be based upon something other than the software itself.
My second point was to say that - as a software engineer, (about the superior, whatever I try to do I try to do well) why is the above good for me?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30679640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30679714</id>
	<title>Re:Why is OSS good?</title>
	<author>\_Sprocket\_</author>
	<datestamp>1262807760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1998 called - something about wanting its post back.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1998 called - something about wanting its post back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1998 called - something about wanting its post back.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30679464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30681322</id>
	<title>Re:please tell us your real agenda.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262873460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>why must this be seen as a threat to OSS? because stallman says so?</p></div><p>I don't know much about this issue - but until I've researched it myself, my default reading would be that Stallman is right.  We laugh at his beard and bear feet, of course, but he's been spectacularly prescient about the importance of software rights, starting back in an age that many of us are too young to remember.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>why must this be seen as a threat to OSS ?
because stallman says so ? I do n't know much about this issue - but until I 've researched it myself , my default reading would be that Stallman is right .
We laugh at his beard and bear feet , of course , but he 's been spectacularly prescient about the importance of software rights , starting back in an age that many of us are too young to remember .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>why must this be seen as a threat to OSS?
because stallman says so?I don't know much about this issue - but until I've researched it myself, my default reading would be that Stallman is right.
We laugh at his beard and bear feet, of course, but he's been spectacularly prescient about the importance of software rights, starting back in an age that many of us are too young to remember.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30678712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30679376</id>
	<title>Re:please tell us your real agenda.</title>
	<author>Dwonis</author>
	<datestamp>1262802900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>stallman says so</p></div><p>{{citation needed}}</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>stallman says so { { citation needed } }</tokentext>
<sentencetext>stallman says so{{citation needed}}
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30678712</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_0241259_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30680590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30678686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_0241259_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30679736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30678710
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_0241259_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30679714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30679464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_0241259_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30679084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30678738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30678668
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_0241259_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30683396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30678712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_0241259_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30682728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30679640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30679464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_0241259_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30682572
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30678898
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_0241259_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30678868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30678668
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_0241259_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30679376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30678712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_0241259_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30678940
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30678898
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_0241259_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30679164
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30678712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_0241259_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30680466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30679464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_0241259_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30682050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30678796
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_0241259_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30681966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30678826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_0241259_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30679514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30679368
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_0241259_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30679654
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30678686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_0241259_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30680684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30679236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30678738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30678668
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_0241259_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30679394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30678738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30678668
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_0241259_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30679188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30678792
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_0241259_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30679338
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30679236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30678738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30678668
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_0241259_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30679716
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30678668
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_0241259_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30681322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30678712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_0241259_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30679930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30679464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_0241259_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30680254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30679368
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_0241259_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30680622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30678668
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_0241259_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30679970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30679464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_0241259_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30679064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30678668
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_0241259.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30679464
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30679930
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30679714
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30680466
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30679640
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30682728
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30679970
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_0241259.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30680304
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_0241259.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30679368
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30679514
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30680254
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_0241259.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30678668
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30679064
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30678868
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30678738
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30679084
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30679394
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30679236
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30679338
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30680684
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30679716
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30680622
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_0241259.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30678618
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_0241259.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30678686
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30680590
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30679654
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_0241259.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30679020
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_0241259.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30678608
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_0241259.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30678798
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_0241259.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30678796
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30682050
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_0241259.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30678792
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30679188
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_0241259.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30678706
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_0241259.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30679136
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_0241259.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30678826
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30681966
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_0241259.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30678898
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30678940
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30682572
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_0241259.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30678704
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_0241259.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30680086
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_0241259.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30678710
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30679736
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_0241259.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30680640
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_0241259.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30678712
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30683396
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30681322
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30679376
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_0241259.30679164
</commentlist>
</conversation>
