<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_17_014215</id>
	<title>Providing a Closed Source License Upon Request?</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1263739740000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>goruka writes <i>"As a citizen of the open source community, I have written several applications and libraries and released under the BSD license. Because of my license choice, I often run into the situation where a company wants to write software for a closed platform using my code or libraries. Even though there should be no restrictions on usage, companies very often request a different license, citing as a valid reason that the creator of such platform has special terms forbidding 'open source software' in the contracts forced upon the developer. So my question is, has anyone else run into this situation, and are there examples of such licenses that I can provide? (Please keep in mind that I'm not a US resident and I don't have access or resources to afford a lawyer there.)"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>goruka writes " As a citizen of the open source community , I have written several applications and libraries and released under the BSD license .
Because of my license choice , I often run into the situation where a company wants to write software for a closed platform using my code or libraries .
Even though there should be no restrictions on usage , companies very often request a different license , citing as a valid reason that the creator of such platform has special terms forbidding 'open source software ' in the contracts forced upon the developer .
So my question is , has anyone else run into this situation , and are there examples of such licenses that I can provide ?
( Please keep in mind that I 'm not a US resident and I do n't have access or resources to afford a lawyer there .
) "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>goruka writes "As a citizen of the open source community, I have written several applications and libraries and released under the BSD license.
Because of my license choice, I often run into the situation where a company wants to write software for a closed platform using my code or libraries.
Even though there should be no restrictions on usage, companies very often request a different license, citing as a valid reason that the creator of such platform has special terms forbidding 'open source software' in the contracts forced upon the developer.
So my question is, has anyone else run into this situation, and are there examples of such licenses that I can provide?
(Please keep in mind that I'm not a US resident and I don't have access or resources to afford a lawyer there.
)"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30796996</id>
	<title>Re:BSD</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263725100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unless they want a proprietary license with an indemnity clause for IP. That's one thing the BSD license doesn't provide.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless they want a proprietary license with an indemnity clause for IP .
That 's one thing the BSD license does n't provide .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless they want a proprietary license with an indemnity clause for IP.
That's one thing the BSD license doesn't provide.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30807538</id>
	<title>Re:BSD</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263828180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>alfoolio has it right. It's yours, licence how you like for that company alone. Make sure you charge for it though because they won't value it unless you do.</p><p>Some of the folks on here obviously don't have families to feed. I recommend you not allow the zealots to hamper your business relationship.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>alfoolio has it right .
It 's yours , licence how you like for that company alone .
Make sure you charge for it though because they wo n't value it unless you do.Some of the folks on here obviously do n't have families to feed .
I recommend you not allow the zealots to hamper your business relationship .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>alfoolio has it right.
It's yours, licence how you like for that company alone.
Make sure you charge for it though because they won't value it unless you do.Some of the folks on here obviously don't have families to feed.
I recommend you not allow the zealots to hamper your business relationship.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30796458</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30797666</id>
	<title>Just make sure...</title>
	<author>itsdapead</author>
	<datestamp>1263737220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just make sure that
</p><p>(a) what you give them is a <b>nonexclusive</b> license to redistribute your code and doesn't actually transfer the copyright to them, so you can continue to distribute the BSD version.
</p><p>(b) they pay you enough money to cover the cost of having a lawyer give the contract the once-over vis. making sure you're not exposing yourself to any liabilities.

</p><p>If they're not proposing to pay you enough money to cover the admin and make it worth your while, tell them to either use the BSD version which you've generously made available or go fish.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just make sure that ( a ) what you give them is a nonexclusive license to redistribute your code and does n't actually transfer the copyright to them , so you can continue to distribute the BSD version .
( b ) they pay you enough money to cover the cost of having a lawyer give the contract the once-over vis .
making sure you 're not exposing yourself to any liabilities .
If they 're not proposing to pay you enough money to cover the admin and make it worth your while , tell them to either use the BSD version which you 've generously made available or go fish .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just make sure that
(a) what you give them is a nonexclusive license to redistribute your code and doesn't actually transfer the copyright to them, so you can continue to distribute the BSD version.
(b) they pay you enough money to cover the cost of having a lawyer give the contract the once-over vis.
making sure you're not exposing yourself to any liabilities.
If they're not proposing to pay you enough money to cover the admin and make it worth your while, tell them to either use the BSD version which you've generously made available or go fish.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795860</id>
	<title>How much are they offering to pay?</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1263660780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If it seems sufficient, tell them to send you a proposed license.  If they won't pay tell them they've already got the only license they are going to get.</p><p>BTW it is a virtual certainty that they are already using BSD-licensed software.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it seems sufficient , tell them to send you a proposed license .
If they wo n't pay tell them they 've already got the only license they are going to get.BTW it is a virtual certainty that they are already using BSD-licensed software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it seems sufficient, tell them to send you a proposed license.
If they won't pay tell them they've already got the only license they are going to get.BTW it is a virtual certainty that they are already using BSD-licensed software.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30797922</id>
	<title>I work for one of "those companies"</title>
	<author>MadHungarian</author>
	<datestamp>1263740160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They don't outright ban free/open source software, but they make you jump thru hoops to use it. Products like SQLite <a href="http://www.hwaci.com/sw/sqlite/sample\_license.html" title="hwaci.com" rel="nofollow">will sell you this one</a> [hwaci.com] for a nice fee.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They do n't outright ban free/open source software , but they make you jump thru hoops to use it .
Products like SQLite will sell you this one [ hwaci.com ] for a nice fee .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They don't outright ban free/open source software, but they make you jump thru hoops to use it.
Products like SQLite will sell you this one [hwaci.com] for a nice fee.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30796436</id>
	<title>Re:What?</title>
	<author>vladkrupin</author>
	<datestamp>1263670980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's actually not uncommon. My current employer has a "no open source allowed without explicit approval by the legal dept, which takes an eternity and is a royal pain, so don't do it unless there's absolutely no alternative" policy. I am not kidding.</p><p>One of my previous employers had the same policy. This is not at all uncommon.</p><p>A few years ago a company found some of my code on the web. The code was released under an apache-like license. They contacted me because they wanted to buy it, but with a couple of minor modifications and under a different license. Essentially very similar scenario as the situation the OP found himself in. I agreed, made the modifications, and sold the original product plus the mods to them under a different license. I think it was cheaper for them to get the modifications they wanted, and the license they liked than develop the same code themselves.</p><p>As for me, I felt that nobody besides that company would have probably wanted those modifications anyway. That's probably not entirely true, but I convinced myself of that so that way I did not feel like I was totally selling out<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:) The Open Source community probably did not miss much by me not releasing those mods. I treated the modifications as "work for hire", and since I never released them, I avoided most of the possible legal difficulties. The original product stayed under the same license, of course. That company is now one of the 5 largest software companies, so I presume the practice is not unusual.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's actually not uncommon .
My current employer has a " no open source allowed without explicit approval by the legal dept , which takes an eternity and is a royal pain , so do n't do it unless there 's absolutely no alternative " policy .
I am not kidding.One of my previous employers had the same policy .
This is not at all uncommon.A few years ago a company found some of my code on the web .
The code was released under an apache-like license .
They contacted me because they wanted to buy it , but with a couple of minor modifications and under a different license .
Essentially very similar scenario as the situation the OP found himself in .
I agreed , made the modifications , and sold the original product plus the mods to them under a different license .
I think it was cheaper for them to get the modifications they wanted , and the license they liked than develop the same code themselves.As for me , I felt that nobody besides that company would have probably wanted those modifications anyway .
That 's probably not entirely true , but I convinced myself of that so that way I did not feel like I was totally selling out : ) The Open Source community probably did not miss much by me not releasing those mods .
I treated the modifications as " work for hire " , and since I never released them , I avoided most of the possible legal difficulties .
The original product stayed under the same license , of course .
That company is now one of the 5 largest software companies , so I presume the practice is not unusual .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's actually not uncommon.
My current employer has a "no open source allowed without explicit approval by the legal dept, which takes an eternity and is a royal pain, so don't do it unless there's absolutely no alternative" policy.
I am not kidding.One of my previous employers had the same policy.
This is not at all uncommon.A few years ago a company found some of my code on the web.
The code was released under an apache-like license.
They contacted me because they wanted to buy it, but with a couple of minor modifications and under a different license.
Essentially very similar scenario as the situation the OP found himself in.
I agreed, made the modifications, and sold the original product plus the mods to them under a different license.
I think it was cheaper for them to get the modifications they wanted, and the license they liked than develop the same code themselves.As for me, I felt that nobody besides that company would have probably wanted those modifications anyway.
That's probably not entirely true, but I convinced myself of that so that way I did not feel like I was totally selling out :) The Open Source community probably did not miss much by me not releasing those mods.
I treated the modifications as "work for hire", and since I never released them, I avoided most of the possible legal difficulties.
The original product stayed under the same license, of course.
That company is now one of the 5 largest software companies, so I presume the practice is not unusual.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795654</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30797398</id>
	<title>Mod parent "can't even RTFA"</title>
	<author>RichiH</author>
	<datestamp>1263732180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; It basically says "Do whatever the hell you want with this software just say I wrote it", I'd hardly call that restrictive and I don't see how a third party would really care.</p><p>We are talking lawyers here. If there is one thing they are good at, it's covering their and their companies asses. And if you had RTFA, you would know that, and I quote, <i>Even though there should be no restrictions on usage, companies very often request a different license citing as a valid reason that the creator of such platform has special terms forbidding 'open source software' in the contracts forced upon the developer.</i></p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; It basically says " Do whatever the hell you want with this software just say I wrote it " , I 'd hardly call that restrictive and I do n't see how a third party would really care.We are talking lawyers here .
If there is one thing they are good at , it 's covering their and their companies asses .
And if you had RTFA , you would know that , and I quote , Even though there should be no restrictions on usage , companies very often request a different license citing as a valid reason that the creator of such platform has special terms forbidding 'open source software ' in the contracts forced upon the developer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; It basically says "Do whatever the hell you want with this software just say I wrote it", I'd hardly call that restrictive and I don't see how a third party would really care.We are talking lawyers here.
If there is one thing they are good at, it's covering their and their companies asses.
And if you had RTFA, you would know that, and I quote, Even though there should be no restrictions on usage, companies very often request a different license citing as a valid reason that the creator of such platform has special terms forbidding 'open source software' in the contracts forced upon the developer.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30796464</id>
	<title>Re:Dual-license</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263671460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The reason you were modded off-topic is probably because your reply had absolutely nothing to do with dual licensing, and everything to do with ranting about what a butthead Monty Widenius is and how much better PostgreSQL and SQLite are than MySQL.  All of which may be true, but it's completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.  Responding to an on-topic post with an off-topic rant does nothing to answer the story submitter's question.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The reason you were modded off-topic is probably because your reply had absolutely nothing to do with dual licensing , and everything to do with ranting about what a butthead Monty Widenius is and how much better PostgreSQL and SQLite are than MySQL .
All of which may be true , but it 's completely irrelevant to the topic at hand .
Responding to an on-topic post with an off-topic rant does nothing to answer the story submitter 's question .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reason you were modded off-topic is probably because your reply had absolutely nothing to do with dual licensing, and everything to do with ranting about what a butthead Monty Widenius is and how much better PostgreSQL and SQLite are than MySQL.
All of which may be true, but it's completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.
Responding to an on-topic post with an off-topic rant does nothing to answer the story submitter's question.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30796038</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795640</id>
	<title>just "copyrignt (c) 2010 me, all rights reserved"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263657900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All I think you need is to make a copy with a statement  along the lines of "copyright (c) yyyy me, all rights reserved" as the copyright statement, and a license that reads something like "company X is given a non-exclusive [and transferrable - if you want it transferrable] license to my program zzzz and may use it as it likes". This accomplishes a dual license, and by saying it is non exclusive it means the rest of the world may still have the right to use other copies of the program according to your other license. Companies that have this kind of rectal - cranial inversion problem tend to want transferrable licenses so they can sell their restricted license somewhere if they like, or so if they get bought, the buyer gets the license also. You may want to replace "company x" with "company x or any successors in interest".</p><p>This is all approximate wording but would express your intent clearly enough.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All I think you need is to make a copy with a statement along the lines of " copyright ( c ) yyyy me , all rights reserved " as the copyright statement , and a license that reads something like " company X is given a non-exclusive [ and transferrable - if you want it transferrable ] license to my program zzzz and may use it as it likes " .
This accomplishes a dual license , and by saying it is non exclusive it means the rest of the world may still have the right to use other copies of the program according to your other license .
Companies that have this kind of rectal - cranial inversion problem tend to want transferrable licenses so they can sell their restricted license somewhere if they like , or so if they get bought , the buyer gets the license also .
You may want to replace " company x " with " company x or any successors in interest " .This is all approximate wording but would express your intent clearly enough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All I think you need is to make a copy with a statement  along the lines of "copyright (c) yyyy me, all rights reserved" as the copyright statement, and a license that reads something like "company X is given a non-exclusive [and transferrable - if you want it transferrable] license to my program zzzz and may use it as it likes".
This accomplishes a dual license, and by saying it is non exclusive it means the rest of the world may still have the right to use other copies of the program according to your other license.
Companies that have this kind of rectal - cranial inversion problem tend to want transferrable licenses so they can sell their restricted license somewhere if they like, or so if they get bought, the buyer gets the license also.
You may want to replace "company x" with "company x or any successors in interest".This is all approximate wording but would express your intent clearly enough.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795618</id>
	<title>Re:Dual-license</title>
	<author>idiotnot</author>
	<datestamp>1263657720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>You can have your program both licensed under BSD, and also offer the same code/library as closed-source for $xx at the same time, with different conditions and fewer restrictions.</i></p><p>Or just have them incorporate your BSD-licensed code into their larger work licensed under a more restrictive license.  This is in contrast to say, LGPL, where the changes do have to be released back if any are made.  If none are made, the code doesn't need to be released.</p><p>If it makes them feel any better, license it under a 4-clause BSD license, where they actually have to give you credit for it, but also provide it under a 3-clause license for everybody else.   I've done exactly that, but in reverse, for customers.  The publicly-released code is 4-clause, but the customer can do WTF-ever he/she wants with it, and doesn't have to credit me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can have your program both licensed under BSD , and also offer the same code/library as closed-source for $ xx at the same time , with different conditions and fewer restrictions.Or just have them incorporate your BSD-licensed code into their larger work licensed under a more restrictive license .
This is in contrast to say , LGPL , where the changes do have to be released back if any are made .
If none are made , the code does n't need to be released.If it makes them feel any better , license it under a 4-clause BSD license , where they actually have to give you credit for it , but also provide it under a 3-clause license for everybody else .
I 've done exactly that , but in reverse , for customers .
The publicly-released code is 4-clause , but the customer can do WTF-ever he/she wants with it , and does n't have to credit me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can have your program both licensed under BSD, and also offer the same code/library as closed-source for $xx at the same time, with different conditions and fewer restrictions.Or just have them incorporate your BSD-licensed code into their larger work licensed under a more restrictive license.
This is in contrast to say, LGPL, where the changes do have to be released back if any are made.
If none are made, the code doesn't need to be released.If it makes them feel any better, license it under a 4-clause BSD license, where they actually have to give you credit for it, but also provide it under a 3-clause license for everybody else.
I've done exactly that, but in reverse, for customers.
The publicly-released code is 4-clause, but the customer can do WTF-ever he/she wants with it, and doesn't have to credit me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795572</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795654</id>
	<title>What?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263657960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"...citing as a valid reason that the creator of such platform has special terms forbidding 'open source software' in the contracts forced upon the developer."

</p><p>What platforms would or could have such a restriction?  Does the iPhone do this?  XBox?  What are we talking about?  Is that even legal?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ...citing as a valid reason that the creator of such platform has special terms forbidding 'open source software ' in the contracts forced upon the developer .
" What platforms would or could have such a restriction ?
Does the iPhone do this ?
XBox ? What are we talking about ?
Is that even legal ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"...citing as a valid reason that the creator of such platform has special terms forbidding 'open source software' in the contracts forced upon the developer.
"

What platforms would or could have such a restriction?
Does the iPhone do this?
XBox?  What are we talking about?
Is that even legal?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795840</id>
	<title>Re:Dual-license</title>
	<author>Tim99</author>
	<datestamp>1263660420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Looking at the problems MySQL seems to be having, this may not be a panacea. Monty Widenius (one of the original authors) is upset. MySQL was sold to Sun - Sun are now being bought by Oracle. Monty seems to be annoyed by this. In spite of him recieving a very large payout for the original sale to Sun, Monty would like the EU to rule that Oracle must change the existing MySLQ GPL licence to a BSD/Apache type so that Monty's new company MariaDB can fork MySQL and continue to use the commercial licence to generate revenue. Here is a thread that I contributed to on The Register <a href="http://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/1/2010/01/04/mysql\_campaign\_15000\_signatures/" title="theregister.co.uk" rel="nofollow">http://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/1/2010/01/04/mysql\_campaign\_15000\_signatures/</a> [theregister.co.uk] <br> <br>
There is a lot more at Groklaw here <a href="http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20091208104422384" title="groklaw.net" rel="nofollow">http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20091208104422384</a> [groklaw.net], <br> here <a href="http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&amp;sid=20100105223841138&amp;title=Letter+from+Monty+Widenius.&amp;type=article&amp;order=&amp;hideanonymous=0&amp;pid=811941#c811949" title="groklaw.net" rel="nofollow">http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&amp;sid=20100105223841138&amp;title=Letter+from+Monty+Widenius.&amp;type=article&amp;order=&amp;hideanonymous=0&amp;pid=811941#c811949</a> [groklaw.net],<br>
here <a href="http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20091204095942328" title="groklaw.net" rel="nofollow">http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20091204095942328</a> [groklaw.net] and here <a href="http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20100108114314405" title="groklaw.net" rel="nofollow">http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20100108114314405</a> [groklaw.net] <br> <br>
Me, I prefer PostgreSQL and SQLite which have a more developer friendly licence. Richard Hipp (the main auther of SQLite) has said that his entirely open licence <a href="http://www.sqlite.org/copyright.html" title="sqlite.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.sqlite.org/copyright.html</a> [sqlite.org] has caused problems to some companies, so he also has a commercial option <a href="http://www.hwaci.com/cgi-bin/license-step1" title="hwaci.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.hwaci.com/cgi-bin/license-step1</a> [hwaci.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Looking at the problems MySQL seems to be having , this may not be a panacea .
Monty Widenius ( one of the original authors ) is upset .
MySQL was sold to Sun - Sun are now being bought by Oracle .
Monty seems to be annoyed by this .
In spite of him recieving a very large payout for the original sale to Sun , Monty would like the EU to rule that Oracle must change the existing MySLQ GPL licence to a BSD/Apache type so that Monty 's new company MariaDB can fork MySQL and continue to use the commercial licence to generate revenue .
Here is a thread that I contributed to on The Register http : //forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/1/2010/01/04/mysql \ _campaign \ _15000 \ _signatures/ [ theregister.co.uk ] There is a lot more at Groklaw here http : //www.groklaw.net/article.php ? story = 20091208104422384 [ groklaw.net ] , here http : //www.groklaw.net/comment.php ? mode = display&amp;sid = 20100105223841138&amp;title = Letter + from + Monty + Widenius.&amp;type = article&amp;order = &amp;hideanonymous = 0&amp;pid = 811941 # c811949 [ groklaw.net ] , here http : //www.groklaw.net/article.php ? story = 20091204095942328 [ groklaw.net ] and here http : //www.groklaw.net/article.php ? story = 20100108114314405 [ groklaw.net ] Me , I prefer PostgreSQL and SQLite which have a more developer friendly licence .
Richard Hipp ( the main auther of SQLite ) has said that his entirely open licence http : //www.sqlite.org/copyright.html [ sqlite.org ] has caused problems to some companies , so he also has a commercial option http : //www.hwaci.com/cgi-bin/license-step1 [ hwaci.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looking at the problems MySQL seems to be having, this may not be a panacea.
Monty Widenius (one of the original authors) is upset.
MySQL was sold to Sun - Sun are now being bought by Oracle.
Monty seems to be annoyed by this.
In spite of him recieving a very large payout for the original sale to Sun, Monty would like the EU to rule that Oracle must change the existing MySLQ GPL licence to a BSD/Apache type so that Monty's new company MariaDB can fork MySQL and continue to use the commercial licence to generate revenue.
Here is a thread that I contributed to on The Register http://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/1/2010/01/04/mysql\_campaign\_15000\_signatures/ [theregister.co.uk]  
There is a lot more at Groklaw here http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20091208104422384 [groklaw.net],  here http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&amp;sid=20100105223841138&amp;title=Letter+from+Monty+Widenius.&amp;type=article&amp;order=&amp;hideanonymous=0&amp;pid=811941#c811949 [groklaw.net],
here http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20091204095942328 [groklaw.net] and here http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20100108114314405 [groklaw.net]  
Me, I prefer PostgreSQL and SQLite which have a more developer friendly licence.
Richard Hipp (the main auther of SQLite) has said that his entirely open licence http://www.sqlite.org/copyright.html [sqlite.org] has caused problems to some companies, so he also has a commercial option http://www.hwaci.com/cgi-bin/license-step1 [hwaci.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795572</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30797898</id>
	<title>what's your motivation?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263739980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You don't really say whether this company that wants your software with a non-open licence is just asking for this or if you are trying to get into a business arrangement with them where you are selling a licence to them to use the software.  Of course, the assumption is that this software is 100\% yours and you are free to license as you wish (or else this whole topic is moot).</p><p>So, if they are just asking for a non-open license from you with no renumeration, what's your motivation to satisfy their request?  Personally, I'd just tell 'em to go pound sand.</p><p>So you must be trying to get remunerated for this non-open license.  If that's the case, then contrary to your claims, you do (or will) have the money to go get the legal advise if you really feel like you need it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't really say whether this company that wants your software with a non-open licence is just asking for this or if you are trying to get into a business arrangement with them where you are selling a licence to them to use the software .
Of course , the assumption is that this software is 100 \ % yours and you are free to license as you wish ( or else this whole topic is moot ) .So , if they are just asking for a non-open license from you with no renumeration , what 's your motivation to satisfy their request ?
Personally , I 'd just tell 'em to go pound sand.So you must be trying to get remunerated for this non-open license .
If that 's the case , then contrary to your claims , you do ( or will ) have the money to go get the legal advise if you really feel like you need it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't really say whether this company that wants your software with a non-open licence is just asking for this or if you are trying to get into a business arrangement with them where you are selling a licence to them to use the software.
Of course, the assumption is that this software is 100\% yours and you are free to license as you wish (or else this whole topic is moot).So, if they are just asking for a non-open license from you with no renumeration, what's your motivation to satisfy their request?
Personally, I'd just tell 'em to go pound sand.So you must be trying to get remunerated for this non-open license.
If that's the case, then contrary to your claims, you do (or will) have the money to go get the legal advise if you really feel like you need it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30798830</id>
	<title>Perhaps just disclaim copyright?</title>
	<author>davecb</author>
	<datestamp>1263747840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You might consider disclaiming copyright in a contract with the customer. The customer can then apply any license they choose to that copy, and all other copies remain under BSD.

</p><p>This means you only need a lawyer to draft a very brief contract that says, in effect, "for consideration X, I agree to supply Y to Z without any warranty, expressed or implied".

</p><p>--dave</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You might consider disclaiming copyright in a contract with the customer .
The customer can then apply any license they choose to that copy , and all other copies remain under BSD .
This means you only need a lawyer to draft a very brief contract that says , in effect , " for consideration X , I agree to supply Y to Z without any warranty , expressed or implied " .
--dave</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You might consider disclaiming copyright in a contract with the customer.
The customer can then apply any license they choose to that copy, and all other copies remain under BSD.
This means you only need a lawyer to draft a very brief contract that says, in effect, "for consideration X, I agree to supply Y to Z without any warranty, expressed or implied".
--dave</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30798148</id>
	<title>No social contract with BSD-style licenses</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263742260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>GPL-style Open source software has an implied social contract.  You get to use someone else's work for free as long as you contribute your additions, improvements, bug-fixes, etc. back to the community.  If they want to use your work without the burden of returning back to the community, they should pay you for your work (and you should have no qualms about dual-licensing it if the price is right).</p><p>With BSD-style licenses there is no social contract, implied or otherwise.  You get to use someone else's work as you see fit.  I think you should dual license it and let them use it how you want, perhaps charging a small fee (smaller than the GPL-style licensed code) to cover your effort required to draft a second license if you see fit (as mattr suggested above).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>GPL-style Open source software has an implied social contract .
You get to use someone else 's work for free as long as you contribute your additions , improvements , bug-fixes , etc .
back to the community .
If they want to use your work without the burden of returning back to the community , they should pay you for your work ( and you should have no qualms about dual-licensing it if the price is right ) .With BSD-style licenses there is no social contract , implied or otherwise .
You get to use someone else 's work as you see fit .
I think you should dual license it and let them use it how you want , perhaps charging a small fee ( smaller than the GPL-style licensed code ) to cover your effort required to draft a second license if you see fit ( as mattr suggested above ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>GPL-style Open source software has an implied social contract.
You get to use someone else's work for free as long as you contribute your additions, improvements, bug-fixes, etc.
back to the community.
If they want to use your work without the burden of returning back to the community, they should pay you for your work (and you should have no qualms about dual-licensing it if the price is right).With BSD-style licenses there is no social contract, implied or otherwise.
You get to use someone else's work as you see fit.
I think you should dual license it and let them use it how you want, perhaps charging a small fee (smaller than the GPL-style licensed code) to cover your effort required to draft a second license if you see fit (as mattr suggested above).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30799570</id>
	<title>Re:What?</title>
	<author>EvilIdler</author>
	<datestamp>1263754080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not the iPhone (see the enormous credits section on a device sometime!) and it's not the Xbox 360 (Xiph.org gets a mention more often than Fraunhofer). It's probably not illegal to have weird requirements, and I would love to know what company this is so I could milk them for money, since they clearly think like Dilbert's boss.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not the iPhone ( see the enormous credits section on a device sometime !
) and it 's not the Xbox 360 ( Xiph.org gets a mention more often than Fraunhofer ) .
It 's probably not illegal to have weird requirements , and I would love to know what company this is so I could milk them for money , since they clearly think like Dilbert 's boss .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not the iPhone (see the enormous credits section on a device sometime!
) and it's not the Xbox 360 (Xiph.org gets a mention more often than Fraunhofer).
It's probably not illegal to have weird requirements, and I would love to know what company this is so I could milk them for money, since they clearly think like Dilbert's boss.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795654</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795564</id>
	<title>Word Games?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263657120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is more on goruka's clients than goruka. Is there really any difference between using relicensed software that is open source and just using open source software?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is more on goruka 's clients than goruka .
Is there really any difference between using relicensed software that is open source and just using open source software ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is more on goruka's clients than goruka.
Is there really any difference between using relicensed software that is open source and just using open source software?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30800320</id>
	<title>Re:Charge a monster price</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263760080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wait - so you'd tell someone who came and offerred to pay you, for code you'd already written, and held the copyright on, to piss off?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait - so you 'd tell someone who came and offerred to pay you , for code you 'd already written , and held the copyright on , to piss off ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait - so you'd tell someone who came and offerred to pay you, for code you'd already written, and held the copyright on, to piss off?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795606</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30797480</id>
	<title>Re:BSD</title>
	<author>Kjella</author>
	<datestamp>1263734040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anyone who can't understand the BSD license without a lawyer is just dense. The developers are probably feeling like Dilbert right about now caught up in absurd rules. Practical reality:</p><p>a) Contact the developer of said source, he'll probably snicker at you and say it's free anyway, here's your absurd license<br>b) Forget about it and write it yourself<br>c) Go on a long and painful quest against legal policy in a large company</p><p>For example, I once wanted to contribute to the Qt library, which should be simple right? Well, normally it's just to sign away pretty much all your rights but that's the choice you make. But not if it's related to the ssl parts which rely on openssl, because they're afraid of the US crypto export restrictions. And even though I'm not in the US, in fact I'm in the country where most Qt development happens, it was still a problem they had to run by legal in order to get an a policy on what documentation would be necessary to certify that I wouldn't being them under those regulations. I don't even recall if I ever got an answer back, but if I did I had long since lost interest in getting it upstream.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone who ca n't understand the BSD license without a lawyer is just dense .
The developers are probably feeling like Dilbert right about now caught up in absurd rules .
Practical reality : a ) Contact the developer of said source , he 'll probably snicker at you and say it 's free anyway , here 's your absurd licenseb ) Forget about it and write it yourselfc ) Go on a long and painful quest against legal policy in a large companyFor example , I once wanted to contribute to the Qt library , which should be simple right ?
Well , normally it 's just to sign away pretty much all your rights but that 's the choice you make .
But not if it 's related to the ssl parts which rely on openssl , because they 're afraid of the US crypto export restrictions .
And even though I 'm not in the US , in fact I 'm in the country where most Qt development happens , it was still a problem they had to run by legal in order to get an a policy on what documentation would be necessary to certify that I would n't being them under those regulations .
I do n't even recall if I ever got an answer back , but if I did I had long since lost interest in getting it upstream .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone who can't understand the BSD license without a lawyer is just dense.
The developers are probably feeling like Dilbert right about now caught up in absurd rules.
Practical reality:a) Contact the developer of said source, he'll probably snicker at you and say it's free anyway, here's your absurd licenseb) Forget about it and write it yourselfc) Go on a long and painful quest against legal policy in a large companyFor example, I once wanted to contribute to the Qt library, which should be simple right?
Well, normally it's just to sign away pretty much all your rights but that's the choice you make.
But not if it's related to the ssl parts which rely on openssl, because they're afraid of the US crypto export restrictions.
And even though I'm not in the US, in fact I'm in the country where most Qt development happens, it was still a problem they had to run by legal in order to get an a policy on what documentation would be necessary to certify that I wouldn't being them under those regulations.
I don't even recall if I ever got an answer back, but if I did I had long since lost interest in getting it upstream.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30796724</id>
	<title>Re:Charge a monster price</title>
	<author>weicco</author>
	<datestamp>1263720000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But BSD licenses, all versions of them, contains the following condition.</p><blockquote><div><p>Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.</p></div></blockquote><p>I think that's what's bugging some vendors. They don't want to put other copyright notices but their own to binary distributions because it could be confusing to users. I can understand their point and I can understand copyright owner's point.</p><p>I've solved this by releasing all my code under MIT license. I don't care if my name shows up to the end user or not. All I care that my name is shown in the source code so all the rest of the developers in the world can see how clever, or stupid, I am!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But BSD licenses , all versions of them , contains the following condition.Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice , this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.I think that 's what 's bugging some vendors .
They do n't want to put other copyright notices but their own to binary distributions because it could be confusing to users .
I can understand their point and I can understand copyright owner 's point.I 've solved this by releasing all my code under MIT license .
I do n't care if my name shows up to the end user or not .
All I care that my name is shown in the source code so all the rest of the developers in the world can see how clever , or stupid , I am !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But BSD licenses, all versions of them, contains the following condition.Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.I think that's what's bugging some vendors.
They don't want to put other copyright notices but their own to binary distributions because it could be confusing to users.
I can understand their point and I can understand copyright owner's point.I've solved this by releasing all my code under MIT license.
I don't care if my name shows up to the end user or not.
All I care that my name is shown in the source code so all the rest of the developers in the world can see how clever, or stupid, I am!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30797386</id>
	<title>Re:What?</title>
	<author>darkmeridian</author>
	<datestamp>1263731880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Many companies do not want open source code in their codebase because of the risk of having to release modifications or the source code to the public. The BSD license does not require it, I think, but other OSS licenses require users to release modifications to source code that are distributed to customers. For instance, if a developer throws BusyBox into your source code, then you make lots of changes to it, you would have to release those modifications to the public. For companies that do proprietary secret stuff like finance work, for instance, this would be unacceptable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Many companies do not want open source code in their codebase because of the risk of having to release modifications or the source code to the public .
The BSD license does not require it , I think , but other OSS licenses require users to release modifications to source code that are distributed to customers .
For instance , if a developer throws BusyBox into your source code , then you make lots of changes to it , you would have to release those modifications to the public .
For companies that do proprietary secret stuff like finance work , for instance , this would be unacceptable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many companies do not want open source code in their codebase because of the risk of having to release modifications or the source code to the public.
The BSD license does not require it, I think, but other OSS licenses require users to release modifications to source code that are distributed to customers.
For instance, if a developer throws BusyBox into your source code, then you make lots of changes to it, you would have to release those modifications to the public.
For companies that do proprietary secret stuff like finance work, for instance, this would be unacceptable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795654</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795738</id>
	<title>Re:What?</title>
	<author>Judinous</author>
	<datestamp>1263659100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why would it not be legal?  The law, by default, allows for anything to be contained in contracts except for specific exceptions that are deemed generally unconscionable.  It makes perfect sense to include a clause like the one the OP is talking about when buying the source to a program for incorporation in a larger closed-source ecosystem.  If you end up being given something with a GPL-esque license and forced to open-source some or all of your code, at least you have someone to sue for damages.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would it not be legal ?
The law , by default , allows for anything to be contained in contracts except for specific exceptions that are deemed generally unconscionable .
It makes perfect sense to include a clause like the one the OP is talking about when buying the source to a program for incorporation in a larger closed-source ecosystem .
If you end up being given something with a GPL-esque license and forced to open-source some or all of your code , at least you have someone to sue for damages .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would it not be legal?
The law, by default, allows for anything to be contained in contracts except for specific exceptions that are deemed generally unconscionable.
It makes perfect sense to include a clause like the one the OP is talking about when buying the source to a program for incorporation in a larger closed-source ecosystem.
If you end up being given something with a GPL-esque license and forced to open-source some or all of your code, at least you have someone to sue for damages.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795654</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795938</id>
	<title>Re:Charge a monster price</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263661800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Um, have you read the BSD license? It basically says "Do whatever the hell you want with this software just say I wrote it", I'd hardly call that restrictive and I don't see how a third party would really care. The terms of the BSD license are basically like someone publishing a public domain book, they really have little to no restrictions other than to put the name of the author on it (yes, I realize that in the public domain it doesn't matter, but most put down where its from already).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Um , have you read the BSD license ?
It basically says " Do whatever the hell you want with this software just say I wrote it " , I 'd hardly call that restrictive and I do n't see how a third party would really care .
The terms of the BSD license are basically like someone publishing a public domain book , they really have little to no restrictions other than to put the name of the author on it ( yes , I realize that in the public domain it does n't matter , but most put down where its from already ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Um, have you read the BSD license?
It basically says "Do whatever the hell you want with this software just say I wrote it", I'd hardly call that restrictive and I don't see how a third party would really care.
The terms of the BSD license are basically like someone publishing a public domain book, they really have little to no restrictions other than to put the name of the author on it (yes, I realize that in the public domain it doesn't matter, but most put down where its from already).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795816</id>
	<title>Re:Dual-license</title>
	<author>Rakshasa Taisab</author>
	<datestamp>1263660000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>As long as the software/library is written completely by yourself, you're free to pick any license -- or dual-license it.</i> </p><p>Also, when accepting any patches require them to be under Public Domain. This leaves you free to change licensing terms in the future and if you're the one who wrote a majority of the code then most people don't care.</p><p>They want to pay you to get a closed source license to comply with their contract? Good, means free money for you and perhaps a bit of contract work fixing bugs and feature requests in the future. Go for it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As long as the software/library is written completely by yourself , you 're free to pick any license -- or dual-license it .
Also , when accepting any patches require them to be under Public Domain .
This leaves you free to change licensing terms in the future and if you 're the one who wrote a majority of the code then most people do n't care.They want to pay you to get a closed source license to comply with their contract ?
Good , means free money for you and perhaps a bit of contract work fixing bugs and feature requests in the future .
Go for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> As long as the software/library is written completely by yourself, you're free to pick any license -- or dual-license it.
Also, when accepting any patches require them to be under Public Domain.
This leaves you free to change licensing terms in the future and if you're the one who wrote a majority of the code then most people don't care.They want to pay you to get a closed source license to comply with their contract?
Good, means free money for you and perhaps a bit of contract work fixing bugs and feature requests in the future.
Go for it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795572</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795572</id>
	<title>Dual-license</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263657240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>As long as the software/library is written completely by yourself, you're free to pick any license -- or dual-license it.<br>
<br>
You can have your program both licensed under BSD, and also offer the same code/library as closed-source for $xx at the same time, with different conditions and fewer restrictions.<br>
<br>
An example of other software that uses the dual-licensing approach is MySQL: for more information see <a href="http://www.mysql.com/news-and-events/newsletter/2003-11/a0000000220.html" title="mysql.com">http://www.mysql.com/news-and-events/newsletter/2003-11/a0000000220.html</a> [mysql.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>As long as the software/library is written completely by yourself , you 're free to pick any license -- or dual-license it .
You can have your program both licensed under BSD , and also offer the same code/library as closed-source for $ xx at the same time , with different conditions and fewer restrictions .
An example of other software that uses the dual-licensing approach is MySQL : for more information see http : //www.mysql.com/news-and-events/newsletter/2003-11/a0000000220.html [ mysql.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As long as the software/library is written completely by yourself, you're free to pick any license -- or dual-license it.
You can have your program both licensed under BSD, and also offer the same code/library as closed-source for $xx at the same time, with different conditions and fewer restrictions.
An example of other software that uses the dual-licensing approach is MySQL: for more information see http://www.mysql.com/news-and-events/newsletter/2003-11/a0000000220.html [mysql.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30796458</id>
	<title>Re:BSD</title>
	<author>alfoolio</author>
	<datestamp>1263671340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OP said in essence:  We have a business requirement of no open software licenses.</p><p>What a proprietary (The BSD 3 clause reworded as mentioned above works fine.) developer license lets them do that a plain vanilla open source license does not allow them to do is WIN THE BUSINESS given the constraints of the situation.</p><p>Perhaps you are inexperienced in the relationship that a smaller vendor holds to a larger customer who has other options.  The general rule is keep the customer satisfied.  Ideally without corrupting your soul.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)  Is the customer (here at least) an idiot?  Why, yes, they are....  In fact, they are the idiot who is paying us so we are able to feed our babies and buy mommy the new minivan.  Does it cost anything to do this special license?  Would it cost us the business to not do it?</p><p>In the real world you work on moral goals by successive approximation.  Sometimes you have to sugar coat the medicine, even if it doesn't taste bad.  Failure to understand and honor these realities while flaying someone for a position that appears morally inferior to yours is itself a form of FUD.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OP said in essence : We have a business requirement of no open software licenses.What a proprietary ( The BSD 3 clause reworded as mentioned above works fine .
) developer license lets them do that a plain vanilla open source license does not allow them to do is WIN THE BUSINESS given the constraints of the situation.Perhaps you are inexperienced in the relationship that a smaller vendor holds to a larger customer who has other options .
The general rule is keep the customer satisfied .
Ideally without corrupting your soul .
; ) Is the customer ( here at least ) an idiot ?
Why , yes , they are.... In fact , they are the idiot who is paying us so we are able to feed our babies and buy mommy the new minivan .
Does it cost anything to do this special license ?
Would it cost us the business to not do it ? In the real world you work on moral goals by successive approximation .
Sometimes you have to sugar coat the medicine , even if it does n't taste bad .
Failure to understand and honor these realities while flaying someone for a position that appears morally inferior to yours is itself a form of FUD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OP said in essence:  We have a business requirement of no open software licenses.What a proprietary (The BSD 3 clause reworded as mentioned above works fine.
) developer license lets them do that a plain vanilla open source license does not allow them to do is WIN THE BUSINESS given the constraints of the situation.Perhaps you are inexperienced in the relationship that a smaller vendor holds to a larger customer who has other options.
The general rule is keep the customer satisfied.
Ideally without corrupting your soul.
;)  Is the customer (here at least) an idiot?
Why, yes, they are....  In fact, they are the idiot who is paying us so we are able to feed our babies and buy mommy the new minivan.
Does it cost anything to do this special license?
Would it cost us the business to not do it?In the real world you work on moral goals by successive approximation.
Sometimes you have to sugar coat the medicine, even if it doesn't taste bad.
Failure to understand and honor these realities while flaying someone for a position that appears morally inferior to yours is itself a form of FUD.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30798200</id>
	<title>Re:Dual-license</title>
	<author>pilsner.urquell</author>
	<datestamp>1263742800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have a little experience in this but it is a few years old.</p><p>(A) If you wrote it I see no problem in duel license, but make sure they understand that it is still your code.</p><p>(B) Be careful, if you write something for them under contract they own it outright.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a little experience in this but it is a few years old .
( A ) If you wrote it I see no problem in duel license , but make sure they understand that it is still your code .
( B ) Be careful , if you write something for them under contract they own it outright .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a little experience in this but it is a few years old.
(A) If you wrote it I see no problem in duel license, but make sure they understand that it is still your code.
(B) Be careful, if you write something for them under contract they own it outright.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795572</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795670</id>
	<title>Re:Charge a monster price</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263658140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If the terms of the BSD license is not good enough, I'd tell them to piss off.</p></div><p>Brilliant! A company wants to use open source software but due to restrictive licencing by a third party cannot do so directly. They ask for a compromise ("Give us the same software with a different licence") and your response is to drive them back to closed source software and abuse them in the process.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the terms of the BSD license is not good enough , I 'd tell them to piss off.Brilliant !
A company wants to use open source software but due to restrictive licencing by a third party can not do so directly .
They ask for a compromise ( " Give us the same software with a different licence " ) and your response is to drive them back to closed source software and abuse them in the process .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the terms of the BSD license is not good enough, I'd tell them to piss off.Brilliant!
A company wants to use open source software but due to restrictive licencing by a third party cannot do so directly.
They ask for a compromise ("Give us the same software with a different licence") and your response is to drive them back to closed source software and abuse them in the process.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795606</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30797114</id>
	<title>It's your copyright</title>
	<author>mwvdlee</author>
	<datestamp>1263727500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If all of the code they want to use is copyrighted by you, you can use whichever licenses you want. There's nothing stopping you from giving away code under an open source and selling the exact same code with a closed source license. Just make sure the closed source license won't become an obstacle for the open source license.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If all of the code they want to use is copyrighted by you , you can use whichever licenses you want .
There 's nothing stopping you from giving away code under an open source and selling the exact same code with a closed source license .
Just make sure the closed source license wo n't become an obstacle for the open source license .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If all of the code they want to use is copyrighted by you, you can use whichever licenses you want.
There's nothing stopping you from giving away code under an open source and selling the exact same code with a closed source license.
Just make sure the closed source license won't become an obstacle for the open source license.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30819176</id>
	<title>Re:Advice on reading the platform contract</title>
	<author>b4dc0d3r</author>
	<datestamp>1263916560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is all good thinking, but the problem persists: what happens when the customer finds out they've been sold something that recently was open source?  It is very possible that the CEO will be a retard, or pretend to be one, and sue for breach of contract.  We said no open source, this thing is the same code as the open source version, we want our money back.</p><p>Here's the situation I see.  OP is a potential code source (for lack of a better term).  Potential customer requires "no open source" as part of the platform requirements.  Platform is controlled by a third party, which has (or will have if the potential customer develops for the platform) a contract with specific wording.  If the wording excludes open source *licenses*, you might be allowed to re-license it.  If the contract says no open-source *code* then you're screwed.</p><p>It doesn't matter whether they are right, point is they might see this as a way to recoup costs, making the bottom line grow.  Especially if they search for more info and find this discussion and read my comment, in which case they might go along with the deal simply so they can sue for breach of contract and wind up with the software for free, and maybe punitive damages for you knowingly offering open source code.  Just getting caught in such a lawsuit would probably ruin a person, even if you win.</p><p>Most of this discussion is centered around trying to make the open-source aspect of the code go away, or be negligible, or do some jedi hand waving and make it work.  I'm putting forth the idea that this is dangerous, and we must consider the customer's contract.  In fact, we can't consider it because we don't have it, and OP might not even be able to have access to it.  So none of our comments are worth anything at this point.  Food for thought, but it doesn't get OP any closer to resolution.</p><p>1) Hire an attorney - OP already said that's out of the question<br>2) Re-license - depending on the customer's contract this might not be possible<br>3) Walk away - probably the best course of action, knowing the attention span of a company is less than a week on any topic other than "the bottom line"</p><p>4) And my recommendation.  If the potential customer wants the code, make them navigate the legal waters for you, with an advance as part of the deal so you can afford to hire a lawyer to represent you.  Don't take one of their lawyers if they offer time - that's suicide (we're already paying this guy, so let him help you and it costs no one any extra money - but it's a trap designed to get our way).  If they can't or won't do that, it's up to you on whether you want to make the investment in researching your options further.  But not a good sign.</p><p>They want the code because it will be cheaper - and if they let you take the legal responsibilities, they are getting work for free.  Look how much legal advice (good and bad) they already have turned up in a centralized, almost easy-to-read format... the amount of time you will need to read and consider these responses has already taken time away from whatever else you intended to do today, or for the next week probably.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is all good thinking , but the problem persists : what happens when the customer finds out they 've been sold something that recently was open source ?
It is very possible that the CEO will be a retard , or pretend to be one , and sue for breach of contract .
We said no open source , this thing is the same code as the open source version , we want our money back.Here 's the situation I see .
OP is a potential code source ( for lack of a better term ) .
Potential customer requires " no open source " as part of the platform requirements .
Platform is controlled by a third party , which has ( or will have if the potential customer develops for the platform ) a contract with specific wording .
If the wording excludes open source * licenses * , you might be allowed to re-license it .
If the contract says no open-source * code * then you 're screwed.It does n't matter whether they are right , point is they might see this as a way to recoup costs , making the bottom line grow .
Especially if they search for more info and find this discussion and read my comment , in which case they might go along with the deal simply so they can sue for breach of contract and wind up with the software for free , and maybe punitive damages for you knowingly offering open source code .
Just getting caught in such a lawsuit would probably ruin a person , even if you win.Most of this discussion is centered around trying to make the open-source aspect of the code go away , or be negligible , or do some jedi hand waving and make it work .
I 'm putting forth the idea that this is dangerous , and we must consider the customer 's contract .
In fact , we ca n't consider it because we do n't have it , and OP might not even be able to have access to it .
So none of our comments are worth anything at this point .
Food for thought , but it does n't get OP any closer to resolution.1 ) Hire an attorney - OP already said that 's out of the question2 ) Re-license - depending on the customer 's contract this might not be possible3 ) Walk away - probably the best course of action , knowing the attention span of a company is less than a week on any topic other than " the bottom line " 4 ) And my recommendation .
If the potential customer wants the code , make them navigate the legal waters for you , with an advance as part of the deal so you can afford to hire a lawyer to represent you .
Do n't take one of their lawyers if they offer time - that 's suicide ( we 're already paying this guy , so let him help you and it costs no one any extra money - but it 's a trap designed to get our way ) .
If they ca n't or wo n't do that , it 's up to you on whether you want to make the investment in researching your options further .
But not a good sign.They want the code because it will be cheaper - and if they let you take the legal responsibilities , they are getting work for free .
Look how much legal advice ( good and bad ) they already have turned up in a centralized , almost easy-to-read format... the amount of time you will need to read and consider these responses has already taken time away from whatever else you intended to do today , or for the next week probably .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is all good thinking, but the problem persists: what happens when the customer finds out they've been sold something that recently was open source?
It is very possible that the CEO will be a retard, or pretend to be one, and sue for breach of contract.
We said no open source, this thing is the same code as the open source version, we want our money back.Here's the situation I see.
OP is a potential code source (for lack of a better term).
Potential customer requires "no open source" as part of the platform requirements.
Platform is controlled by a third party, which has (or will have if the potential customer develops for the platform) a contract with specific wording.
If the wording excludes open source *licenses*, you might be allowed to re-license it.
If the contract says no open-source *code* then you're screwed.It doesn't matter whether they are right, point is they might see this as a way to recoup costs, making the bottom line grow.
Especially if they search for more info and find this discussion and read my comment, in which case they might go along with the deal simply so they can sue for breach of contract and wind up with the software for free, and maybe punitive damages for you knowingly offering open source code.
Just getting caught in such a lawsuit would probably ruin a person, even if you win.Most of this discussion is centered around trying to make the open-source aspect of the code go away, or be negligible, or do some jedi hand waving and make it work.
I'm putting forth the idea that this is dangerous, and we must consider the customer's contract.
In fact, we can't consider it because we don't have it, and OP might not even be able to have access to it.
So none of our comments are worth anything at this point.
Food for thought, but it doesn't get OP any closer to resolution.1) Hire an attorney - OP already said that's out of the question2) Re-license - depending on the customer's contract this might not be possible3) Walk away - probably the best course of action, knowing the attention span of a company is less than a week on any topic other than "the bottom line"4) And my recommendation.
If the potential customer wants the code, make them navigate the legal waters for you, with an advance as part of the deal so you can afford to hire a lawyer to represent you.
Don't take one of their lawyers if they offer time - that's suicide (we're already paying this guy, so let him help you and it costs no one any extra money - but it's a trap designed to get our way).
If they can't or won't do that, it's up to you on whether you want to make the investment in researching your options further.
But not a good sign.They want the code because it will be cheaper - and if they let you take the legal responsibilities, they are getting work for free.
Look how much legal advice (good and bad) they already have turned up in a centralized, almost easy-to-read format... the amount of time you will need to read and consider these responses has already taken time away from whatever else you intended to do today, or for the next week probably.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30796888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795692</id>
	<title>Re:Word Games?</title>
	<author>TheWanderingHermit</author>
	<datestamp>1263658500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not saying this to be sarcastic, but one big difference could be if he gets paid.</p><p>If they're offering to pay you for a closed source license, then it's worth time to research it.  If they want the code free, they got no business asking a coder to do even more work for them in the form of a new license for free.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not saying this to be sarcastic , but one big difference could be if he gets paid.If they 're offering to pay you for a closed source license , then it 's worth time to research it .
If they want the code free , they got no business asking a coder to do even more work for them in the form of a new license for free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not saying this to be sarcastic, but one big difference could be if he gets paid.If they're offering to pay you for a closed source license, then it's worth time to research it.
If they want the code free, they got no business asking a coder to do even more work for them in the form of a new license for free.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30796768</id>
	<title>You're probably dealing with idiots</title>
	<author>SpaghettiPattern</author>
	<datestamp>1263720780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Either your client wants to redistribute your code without restrictions, they don't understand licensing or they are persuaded by certain business partners that open source should be avoided.<br> <br>

If the client wants to redistribute, charge as many fees as you possibly can. Base license fee, sold site fee, per host sold fee, per user sold fee, think of anything else fee... Some organizations actually like that. If you have an ethical problem with that, see it as a price they pay for purification of their sorry souls.<br> <br>

Is your client by any chance an MS business partner?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Either your client wants to redistribute your code without restrictions , they do n't understand licensing or they are persuaded by certain business partners that open source should be avoided .
If the client wants to redistribute , charge as many fees as you possibly can .
Base license fee , sold site fee , per host sold fee , per user sold fee , think of anything else fee... Some organizations actually like that .
If you have an ethical problem with that , see it as a price they pay for purification of their sorry souls .
Is your client by any chance an MS business partner ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Either your client wants to redistribute your code without restrictions, they don't understand licensing or they are persuaded by certain business partners that open source should be avoided.
If the client wants to redistribute, charge as many fees as you possibly can.
Base license fee, sold site fee, per host sold fee, per user sold fee, think of anything else fee... Some organizations actually like that.
If you have an ethical problem with that, see it as a price they pay for purification of their sorry souls.
Is your client by any chance an MS business partner?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30799886</id>
	<title>Re:Charge a monster price</title>
	<author>Chelloveck</author>
	<datestamp>1263756480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <i>If the terms of the BSD license is not good enough, I'd tell them to piss off.</i></p></div> </blockquote><p>That is precisely what I'd do. The BSD license allows the recipient to use, change and redistribute a package damn near any way they want. The only stipulations are that the copyright notice has to be retained <i>somewhere</i> (in the docs is fine); they can make no claim that the original author endorses this product; and they're not allowed to sue the original author should the code be found buggy or otherwise unsuitable for the purpose. That's it. Give us credit, don't put words in our mouths, don't sue us. Beyond that, do what you want. It's the most permissive thing out there short of actual public domain.

</p><p>If that's not good enough, screw 'em. Any hang-ups about open-source software are their own problem.

</p><p>Of course, sufficient remuneration would get me to change my mind. I admit I'm a whore; but I'm not a cheap one!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the terms of the BSD license is not good enough , I 'd tell them to piss off .
That is precisely what I 'd do .
The BSD license allows the recipient to use , change and redistribute a package damn near any way they want .
The only stipulations are that the copyright notice has to be retained somewhere ( in the docs is fine ) ; they can make no claim that the original author endorses this product ; and they 're not allowed to sue the original author should the code be found buggy or otherwise unsuitable for the purpose .
That 's it .
Give us credit , do n't put words in our mouths , do n't sue us .
Beyond that , do what you want .
It 's the most permissive thing out there short of actual public domain .
If that 's not good enough , screw 'em .
Any hang-ups about open-source software are their own problem .
Of course , sufficient remuneration would get me to change my mind .
I admit I 'm a whore ; but I 'm not a cheap one !</tokentext>
<sentencetext> If the terms of the BSD license is not good enough, I'd tell them to piss off.
That is precisely what I'd do.
The BSD license allows the recipient to use, change and redistribute a package damn near any way they want.
The only stipulations are that the copyright notice has to be retained somewhere (in the docs is fine); they can make no claim that the original author endorses this product; and they're not allowed to sue the original author should the code be found buggy or otherwise unsuitable for the purpose.
That's it.
Give us credit, don't put words in our mouths, don't sue us.
Beyond that, do what you want.
It's the most permissive thing out there short of actual public domain.
If that's not good enough, screw 'em.
Any hang-ups about open-source software are their own problem.
Of course, sufficient remuneration would get me to change my mind.
I admit I'm a whore; but I'm not a cheap one!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795606</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795638</id>
	<title>Re:Word Games?</title>
	<author>cbreaker</author>
	<datestamp>1263657900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's what I was thinking.   I mean, basically they'd be lying to the concerned party by saying "Ohh, this isn't the OPEN SOURCE software you're afraid of."   Even though it's the same code.<br><br>The only reason I see it being an issue for a company is if it's GPL code and they don't want to deal with the GPL, but if they're too lazy to read the BSD license (or already know what it is for goodness sakes) then I guess shame on them.<br><br>Obviously if you wrote the code you can provide a "closed source" or closed license version of it if you want to.    Of course, if anyone else has contributed to it, then that changes things a little bit.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's what I was thinking .
I mean , basically they 'd be lying to the concerned party by saying " Ohh , this is n't the OPEN SOURCE software you 're afraid of .
" Even though it 's the same code.The only reason I see it being an issue for a company is if it 's GPL code and they do n't want to deal with the GPL , but if they 're too lazy to read the BSD license ( or already know what it is for goodness sakes ) then I guess shame on them.Obviously if you wrote the code you can provide a " closed source " or closed license version of it if you want to .
Of course , if anyone else has contributed to it , then that changes things a little bit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's what I was thinking.
I mean, basically they'd be lying to the concerned party by saying "Ohh, this isn't the OPEN SOURCE software you're afraid of.
"   Even though it's the same code.The only reason I see it being an issue for a company is if it's GPL code and they don't want to deal with the GPL, but if they're too lazy to read the BSD license (or already know what it is for goodness sakes) then I guess shame on them.Obviously if you wrote the code you can provide a "closed source" or closed license version of it if you want to.
Of course, if anyone else has contributed to it, then that changes things a little bit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30796894</id>
	<title>Re:BSD</title>
	<author>yuhong</author>
	<datestamp>1263723240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yea, it is just ridiculous. Not to mention that the companies are often probably already using open source without realizing it. For example, a school district banned open-source software without realizing that Mac OS X includes Darwin which is open source:<br>
<a href="http://lowendmac.com/hodges/06/1109.html" title="lowendmac.com" rel="nofollow">http://lowendmac.com/hodges/06/1109.html</a> [lowendmac.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yea , it is just ridiculous .
Not to mention that the companies are often probably already using open source without realizing it .
For example , a school district banned open-source software without realizing that Mac OS X includes Darwin which is open source : http : //lowendmac.com/hodges/06/1109.html [ lowendmac.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yea, it is just ridiculous.
Not to mention that the companies are often probably already using open source without realizing it.
For example, a school district banned open-source software without realizing that Mac OS X includes Darwin which is open source:
http://lowendmac.com/hodges/06/1109.html [lowendmac.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30797370</id>
	<title>Re:Charge a monster price</title>
	<author>realityimpaired</author>
	<datestamp>1263731640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>TFA... actually, TFS... said quite clearly that the developper in question is being restricted from using open-source materials by the people they're contracted to develop the software. That's where the third party having issues with BSD comes from.</p><p>That's also why, elsewhere in the comments, I suggested using cc-by, which basically gives the same rights as the BSD license by doesn't have the stigma of being an "open source" license (even though it is an open source license).</p><p>But the submitter should be asking more questions of the people. Find out what's wrong with the BSD license, and what they want fixing. If it's the attribution clause, for example, he can quite easily remove the attribution clause from the BSD license and send them a copy. If, however, it's the indemnity of liability, then he should tell them to go fuck themselves.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>TFA... actually , TFS... said quite clearly that the developper in question is being restricted from using open-source materials by the people they 're contracted to develop the software .
That 's where the third party having issues with BSD comes from.That 's also why , elsewhere in the comments , I suggested using cc-by , which basically gives the same rights as the BSD license by does n't have the stigma of being an " open source " license ( even though it is an open source license ) .But the submitter should be asking more questions of the people .
Find out what 's wrong with the BSD license , and what they want fixing .
If it 's the attribution clause , for example , he can quite easily remove the attribution clause from the BSD license and send them a copy .
If , however , it 's the indemnity of liability , then he should tell them to go fuck themselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TFA... actually, TFS... said quite clearly that the developper in question is being restricted from using open-source materials by the people they're contracted to develop the software.
That's where the third party having issues with BSD comes from.That's also why, elsewhere in the comments, I suggested using cc-by, which basically gives the same rights as the BSD license by doesn't have the stigma of being an "open source" license (even though it is an open source license).But the submitter should be asking more questions of the people.
Find out what's wrong with the BSD license, and what they want fixing.
If it's the attribution clause, for example, he can quite easily remove the attribution clause from the BSD license and send them a copy.
If, however, it's the indemnity of liability, then he should tell them to go fuck themselves.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30797348</id>
	<title>Re:Advice on making a commercial contract</title>
	<author>alanbcohen</author>
	<datestamp>1263731220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Excellent analysis.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Excellent analysis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Excellent analysis.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30796888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30807582</id>
	<title>How do you find a good software license lawyer?</title>
	<author>edmicman</author>
	<datestamp>1263828420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OT a big, but I see a lot of suggestions about contacting a lawyer to discuss things like this in depth, but what should you look for in finding one of these lawyers?  Specifically if you're not in a tech-savvy part of the country; i.e., say a medium-sized town in the Mid-West?  I've got a project I would like some lawyerly advice on, but everyone locally seems to be either personal injury, property law, or divorce law.  Would someone who's familiar with general contract law or something work?  Or how do you go about finding a person or firm that's familiar with software licenses and IP law?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OT a big , but I see a lot of suggestions about contacting a lawyer to discuss things like this in depth , but what should you look for in finding one of these lawyers ?
Specifically if you 're not in a tech-savvy part of the country ; i.e. , say a medium-sized town in the Mid-West ?
I 've got a project I would like some lawyerly advice on , but everyone locally seems to be either personal injury , property law , or divorce law .
Would someone who 's familiar with general contract law or something work ?
Or how do you go about finding a person or firm that 's familiar with software licenses and IP law ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OT a big, but I see a lot of suggestions about contacting a lawyer to discuss things like this in depth, but what should you look for in finding one of these lawyers?
Specifically if you're not in a tech-savvy part of the country; i.e., say a medium-sized town in the Mid-West?
I've got a project I would like some lawyerly advice on, but everyone locally seems to be either personal injury, property law, or divorce law.
Would someone who's familiar with general contract law or something work?
Or how do you go about finding a person or firm that's familiar with software licenses and IP law?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30796262</id>
	<title>From the other side</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263667380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The company I work at paid $10k to the author of a GPL program to be able to use its code in our product.  If they want to a non-BSD license you should be happy to get a local lawyer write something closed for them and charge them $10kUS for this silliness.  You can probably get some money upfront in good faith to cover your costs of writing this up.</p><p>My only advice would be to make it for version 2.x or whatever your current major version is so you can both make money off of next version and don't find yourself tied to this agreement forever.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The company I work at paid $ 10k to the author of a GPL program to be able to use its code in our product .
If they want to a non-BSD license you should be happy to get a local lawyer write something closed for them and charge them $ 10kUS for this silliness .
You can probably get some money upfront in good faith to cover your costs of writing this up.My only advice would be to make it for version 2.x or whatever your current major version is so you can both make money off of next version and do n't find yourself tied to this agreement forever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The company I work at paid $10k to the author of a GPL program to be able to use its code in our product.
If they want to a non-BSD license you should be happy to get a local lawyer write something closed for them and charge them $10kUS for this silliness.
You can probably get some money upfront in good faith to cover your costs of writing this up.My only advice would be to make it for version 2.x or whatever your current major version is so you can both make money off of next version and don't find yourself tied to this agreement forever.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30803370</id>
	<title>Simple answer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263739140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Tell them no. You've licensed your product the way you see fit, if they don't want to use it "as provided," they're not required to use it. Adding your code to a closed-source product encourages them to add a copyright to their product <i>including your copyrighted and open source code in the closed source</i>...thereby making it harder to find where and when your code is being used or abused, and encouraging unscrupulous developers to remove all comments and attribution from the mingled code and passing it on as theirs, possibly endangering your copyright. Keep it open source with attribution intact!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tell them no .
You 've licensed your product the way you see fit , if they do n't want to use it " as provided , " they 're not required to use it .
Adding your code to a closed-source product encourages them to add a copyright to their product including your copyrighted and open source code in the closed source...thereby making it harder to find where and when your code is being used or abused , and encouraging unscrupulous developers to remove all comments and attribution from the mingled code and passing it on as theirs , possibly endangering your copyright .
Keep it open source with attribution intact !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tell them no.
You've licensed your product the way you see fit, if they don't want to use it "as provided," they're not required to use it.
Adding your code to a closed-source product encourages them to add a copyright to their product including your copyrighted and open source code in the closed source...thereby making it harder to find where and when your code is being used or abused, and encouraging unscrupulous developers to remove all comments and attribution from the mingled code and passing it on as theirs, possibly endangering your copyright.
Keep it open source with attribution intact!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30797360</id>
	<title>You got the [L]GPL wrong.</title>
	<author>RichiH</author>
	<datestamp>1263731340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; This is in contrast to say, LGPL, where the changes do have to be released back if any are made. If none are made, the code doesn't need to be released.</p><p>Once again, the BSD crowd gets the [L]GPL wrong. You need to <b>offer to release the changes to the people/entities you are giving the modified product to</b>. Not more, but not less, either.</p><p>You might think the difference is minimal. I don't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; This is in contrast to say , LGPL , where the changes do have to be released back if any are made .
If none are made , the code does n't need to be released.Once again , the BSD crowd gets the [ L ] GPL wrong .
You need to offer to release the changes to the people/entities you are giving the modified product to .
Not more , but not less , either.You might think the difference is minimal .
I do n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; This is in contrast to say, LGPL, where the changes do have to be released back if any are made.
If none are made, the code doesn't need to be released.Once again, the BSD crowd gets the [L]GPL wrong.
You need to offer to release the changes to the people/entities you are giving the modified product to.
Not more, but not less, either.You might think the difference is minimal.
I don't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795618</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30796376</id>
	<title>It's simple..</title>
	<author>NeuralAbyss</author>
	<datestamp>1263669780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Very simple solution: dual-licensing.</p><p>Make sure copyright in any committed patches is assigned to you, or require public domain, and take the dual license route. If they're adverse to using the BSD license, charge them for the privilege and get a lawyer to write up a software license.</p><p>Bit of money for you, a (hopefully) reliable license for all parties, and the organisation gets the code under a non-OSS license. Everyone wins.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Very simple solution : dual-licensing.Make sure copyright in any committed patches is assigned to you , or require public domain , and take the dual license route .
If they 're adverse to using the BSD license , charge them for the privilege and get a lawyer to write up a software license.Bit of money for you , a ( hopefully ) reliable license for all parties , and the organisation gets the code under a non-OSS license .
Everyone wins .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Very simple solution: dual-licensing.Make sure copyright in any committed patches is assigned to you, or require public domain, and take the dual license route.
If they're adverse to using the BSD license, charge them for the privilege and get a lawyer to write up a software license.Bit of money for you, a (hopefully) reliable license for all parties, and the organisation gets the code under a non-OSS license.
Everyone wins.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30796188</id>
	<title>seems clear enough to me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263666180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Even though there should be no restrictions on usage, companies very often request a different license citing as a valid reason that the creator of such platform has special terms forbidding 'open source software' in the contracts forced upon the developer.</p></div></blockquote><p>I think they've answered the question for you. If their contract says they can't use open source software, then they are already forbidden from using any already-open code in the project, even if they get a special alternate form of license from you.</p><p>Also, if you've ever taken patches from other developers, and didn't have them sign a statement that giving you copyright over the patch, you're probably not legally allowed to relicense their work anyway.</p><p>Finally, while I can't speak to your motivations, if I released software under an open source license and someone came along and said, "hey, we need a different license for this, can you help us out?" My response would be, "how much are you paying me for it?"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even though there should be no restrictions on usage , companies very often request a different license citing as a valid reason that the creator of such platform has special terms forbidding 'open source software ' in the contracts forced upon the developer.I think they 've answered the question for you .
If their contract says they ca n't use open source software , then they are already forbidden from using any already-open code in the project , even if they get a special alternate form of license from you.Also , if you 've ever taken patches from other developers , and did n't have them sign a statement that giving you copyright over the patch , you 're probably not legally allowed to relicense their work anyway.Finally , while I ca n't speak to your motivations , if I released software under an open source license and someone came along and said , " hey , we need a different license for this , can you help us out ?
" My response would be , " how much are you paying me for it ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even though there should be no restrictions on usage, companies very often request a different license citing as a valid reason that the creator of such platform has special terms forbidding 'open source software' in the contracts forced upon the developer.I think they've answered the question for you.
If their contract says they can't use open source software, then they are already forbidden from using any already-open code in the project, even if they get a special alternate form of license from you.Also, if you've ever taken patches from other developers, and didn't have them sign a statement that giving you copyright over the patch, you're probably not legally allowed to relicense their work anyway.Finally, while I can't speak to your motivations, if I released software under an open source license and someone came along and said, "hey, we need a different license for this, can you help us out?
" My response would be, "how much are you paying me for it?
"
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30799222</id>
	<title>In the word of Rush Limbaugh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263751200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Let them fail." Rush said this towards the TARP money which he was against but his idea works in any market. If they don't get the code they need and an open source alternative works then the open source alternative will drive them under.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Let them fail .
" Rush said this towards the TARP money which he was against but his idea works in any market .
If they do n't get the code they need and an open source alternative works then the open source alternative will drive them under .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Let them fail.
" Rush said this towards the TARP money which he was against but his idea works in any market.
If they don't get the code they need and an open source alternative works then the open source alternative will drive them under.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30796888</id>
	<title>Advice on making a commercial contract</title>
	<author>mattr</author>
	<datestamp>1263723180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some companies will register the software purchased as an asset, and that is the procedure they must follow. They need a contract that specifies the license terms. There also has to be someone they can complain to, or contact to make improvements, or at least explain some code so they can make improvements (if you allow that). This is their procedure for operating business responsibly and that's fine.</p><p>Also as someone else mentioned, they might have to have their legal department, or paid external lawyers, analyze carefully an open source contract for viral bits. If they can write the contract for you it is easiest but make sure it contains what is shown below. Or you could use a template on the web.</p><p>People here telling you to tell them to buzz off if they won't accept BSD, etc. are not in business, and that's what is scary. Open source programmers need to be able to make a living in order to support doing their open source work, so a company asking you for a commercial liscense for that exact work you have already done is fabulous! Unless you have a job where you are paid to write open source software, this is ideal I should think. More like that and you wouldn't need to do other commercial work, right?</p><p>A commercial liscense costs money; no real company buys software for $1. The code may be exactly the same as the free version, it is okay to charge money for it.</p><p>All you need to do is make it easy for your client to purchase the a non-exclusive liscense to your product. This is actually an opportunity for you. You can make some money now, have a possibility for a support contract or more commercial work in the future, and you can say the code is used in a commercial product, which speaks of its quality.</p><p>Things you should specify (off the top of my head - maybe you can find some more information elsewhere):</p><p>Your (or your company's) name and address, and theirs. At the bottom, your name and the person on their side, with signatures.</p><p>Disclaimer of your liability: That the software is provided on an as-is basis and you the vendor have absolutely no liability for any defect in it, nor for any losses that may ensue through its use, or its legality in some jurisdiction, nor it is intended for illegal uses, or use in mission critical applications, etc. There is plenty of boilerplate around you can find that says this. (Assuming they are just buying something of yours and they aren't hiring you to create something for them. If they were, you'd have to guarantee against fatal-level defects, and that it meets a carefully agreed-on specification. Things like behavior in a cluster, usability on a certain architecture, 64-bit, Y2K or security related vulnerabilities would then require you to maintain it. You should add in it that any work to make improvements or repair bugs will be charged separately.)</p><p>The price. Charge them a reasonable price for it, this is a commercial license and you can include some support with it. If you include 10 hours support for free then maybe $1000 is okay, or more it depends on what the amount of code is of course. Charge for additional work you do at a certain hourly rate too if you want. Maybe you could discuss that here. You could sound them off about the price verbally. Priced beyond a certain threshold will make the decision get booted up higher.<br>The deliverables. Usually they need something physical. Make a CD with a nice label, write a short instruction manual, and print it out on paper (also included as a PDF or text file inside the CD). The CD and manual are physical assets that they can put in the vault and have available for software audits.</p><p>Your responsiblity to support them. You may be tempted to say support is free forever, but don't do that, it costs you your time and they want value. Say limited support for a short amount of time and if they want it you can make some separate consulting or support contract with them.<br>If they are paying you then you can afford to provide them with support to get up and running, or to discuss wit</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some companies will register the software purchased as an asset , and that is the procedure they must follow .
They need a contract that specifies the license terms .
There also has to be someone they can complain to , or contact to make improvements , or at least explain some code so they can make improvements ( if you allow that ) .
This is their procedure for operating business responsibly and that 's fine.Also as someone else mentioned , they might have to have their legal department , or paid external lawyers , analyze carefully an open source contract for viral bits .
If they can write the contract for you it is easiest but make sure it contains what is shown below .
Or you could use a template on the web.People here telling you to tell them to buzz off if they wo n't accept BSD , etc .
are not in business , and that 's what is scary .
Open source programmers need to be able to make a living in order to support doing their open source work , so a company asking you for a commercial liscense for that exact work you have already done is fabulous !
Unless you have a job where you are paid to write open source software , this is ideal I should think .
More like that and you would n't need to do other commercial work , right ? A commercial liscense costs money ; no real company buys software for $ 1 .
The code may be exactly the same as the free version , it is okay to charge money for it.All you need to do is make it easy for your client to purchase the a non-exclusive liscense to your product .
This is actually an opportunity for you .
You can make some money now , have a possibility for a support contract or more commercial work in the future , and you can say the code is used in a commercial product , which speaks of its quality.Things you should specify ( off the top of my head - maybe you can find some more information elsewhere ) : Your ( or your company 's ) name and address , and theirs .
At the bottom , your name and the person on their side , with signatures.Disclaimer of your liability : That the software is provided on an as-is basis and you the vendor have absolutely no liability for any defect in it , nor for any losses that may ensue through its use , or its legality in some jurisdiction , nor it is intended for illegal uses , or use in mission critical applications , etc .
There is plenty of boilerplate around you can find that says this .
( Assuming they are just buying something of yours and they are n't hiring you to create something for them .
If they were , you 'd have to guarantee against fatal-level defects , and that it meets a carefully agreed-on specification .
Things like behavior in a cluster , usability on a certain architecture , 64-bit , Y2K or security related vulnerabilities would then require you to maintain it .
You should add in it that any work to make improvements or repair bugs will be charged separately .
) The price .
Charge them a reasonable price for it , this is a commercial license and you can include some support with it .
If you include 10 hours support for free then maybe $ 1000 is okay , or more it depends on what the amount of code is of course .
Charge for additional work you do at a certain hourly rate too if you want .
Maybe you could discuss that here .
You could sound them off about the price verbally .
Priced beyond a certain threshold will make the decision get booted up higher.The deliverables .
Usually they need something physical .
Make a CD with a nice label , write a short instruction manual , and print it out on paper ( also included as a PDF or text file inside the CD ) .
The CD and manual are physical assets that they can put in the vault and have available for software audits.Your responsiblity to support them .
You may be tempted to say support is free forever , but do n't do that , it costs you your time and they want value .
Say limited support for a short amount of time and if they want it you can make some separate consulting or support contract with them.If they are paying you then you can afford to provide them with support to get up and running , or to discuss wit</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some companies will register the software purchased as an asset, and that is the procedure they must follow.
They need a contract that specifies the license terms.
There also has to be someone they can complain to, or contact to make improvements, or at least explain some code so they can make improvements (if you allow that).
This is their procedure for operating business responsibly and that's fine.Also as someone else mentioned, they might have to have their legal department, or paid external lawyers, analyze carefully an open source contract for viral bits.
If they can write the contract for you it is easiest but make sure it contains what is shown below.
Or you could use a template on the web.People here telling you to tell them to buzz off if they won't accept BSD, etc.
are not in business, and that's what is scary.
Open source programmers need to be able to make a living in order to support doing their open source work, so a company asking you for a commercial liscense for that exact work you have already done is fabulous!
Unless you have a job where you are paid to write open source software, this is ideal I should think.
More like that and you wouldn't need to do other commercial work, right?A commercial liscense costs money; no real company buys software for $1.
The code may be exactly the same as the free version, it is okay to charge money for it.All you need to do is make it easy for your client to purchase the a non-exclusive liscense to your product.
This is actually an opportunity for you.
You can make some money now, have a possibility for a support contract or more commercial work in the future, and you can say the code is used in a commercial product, which speaks of its quality.Things you should specify (off the top of my head - maybe you can find some more information elsewhere):Your (or your company's) name and address, and theirs.
At the bottom, your name and the person on their side, with signatures.Disclaimer of your liability: That the software is provided on an as-is basis and you the vendor have absolutely no liability for any defect in it, nor for any losses that may ensue through its use, or its legality in some jurisdiction, nor it is intended for illegal uses, or use in mission critical applications, etc.
There is plenty of boilerplate around you can find that says this.
(Assuming they are just buying something of yours and they aren't hiring you to create something for them.
If they were, you'd have to guarantee against fatal-level defects, and that it meets a carefully agreed-on specification.
Things like behavior in a cluster, usability on a certain architecture, 64-bit, Y2K or security related vulnerabilities would then require you to maintain it.
You should add in it that any work to make improvements or repair bugs will be charged separately.
)The price.
Charge them a reasonable price for it, this is a commercial license and you can include some support with it.
If you include 10 hours support for free then maybe $1000 is okay, or more it depends on what the amount of code is of course.
Charge for additional work you do at a certain hourly rate too if you want.
Maybe you could discuss that here.
You could sound them off about the price verbally.
Priced beyond a certain threshold will make the decision get booted up higher.The deliverables.
Usually they need something physical.
Make a CD with a nice label, write a short instruction manual, and print it out on paper (also included as a PDF or text file inside the CD).
The CD and manual are physical assets that they can put in the vault and have available for software audits.Your responsiblity to support them.
You may be tempted to say support is free forever, but don't do that, it costs you your time and they want value.
Say limited support for a short amount of time and if they want it you can make some separate consulting or support contract with them.If they are paying you then you can afford to provide them with support to get up and running, or to discuss wit</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795866</id>
	<title>It's not the source code, it's the Patents</title>
	<author>heironymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263660900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Big companies fear open source because it's a threat to their intellectual property.  If a company uses an open source product, and that product (accidentally and unknowingly of course) infringes on one of their patents, then that company loses the ability to enforce their own patent in the future.</p><p>Patents are the "mustard gas" of big companies.  Everybody has them, and nobody uses them.  But you better have them stockpiled, or somebody might use theirs against you.  Some open source licenses rob companies of this line of defense.  The hoops one has to jump through at a big company just to use Log4J are maddening.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Big companies fear open source because it 's a threat to their intellectual property .
If a company uses an open source product , and that product ( accidentally and unknowingly of course ) infringes on one of their patents , then that company loses the ability to enforce their own patent in the future.Patents are the " mustard gas " of big companies .
Everybody has them , and nobody uses them .
But you better have them stockpiled , or somebody might use theirs against you .
Some open source licenses rob companies of this line of defense .
The hoops one has to jump through at a big company just to use Log4J are maddening .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Big companies fear open source because it's a threat to their intellectual property.
If a company uses an open source product, and that product (accidentally and unknowingly of course) infringes on one of their patents, then that company loses the ability to enforce their own patent in the future.Patents are the "mustard gas" of big companies.
Everybody has them, and nobody uses them.
But you better have them stockpiled, or somebody might use theirs against you.
Some open source licenses rob companies of this line of defense.
The hoops one has to jump through at a big company just to use Log4J are maddening.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30800330</id>
	<title>Danger, Will Robinson!</title>
	<author>david.given</author>
	<datestamp>1263760200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Have you ever received any contributions?

</p><p>As the author, you are entitled to relicense the software as you see fit. But if you have ever received a patch from anyone, <i>you are no longer the sole author</i>. This means that the only parts you can relicense are the bits you wrote. You can't relicense any of the bits other people wrote without their approval.

</p><p>Having multiple authors in a projects makes your life significantly more complicated, legally speaking. It's vitally important to keep a record of any contributions you've received to a project. The FSF actually require all contributors to their official projects to sign over copyright to them so that they legally own the contributions, simply to avoid the problem of having multiple authors.

</p><p>This has been a problem with some semi-open-source projects. I remember that the sparse compiler frontend, which had a rather strange and legally dubious license, is now unable to relicense the source to something more sensible because some of the authors no longer exist, which means their approval cannot be obtained.

</p><p>So you need to be very careful here. Producing a commercial license simply may not be an option for you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you ever received any contributions ?
As the author , you are entitled to relicense the software as you see fit .
But if you have ever received a patch from anyone , you are no longer the sole author .
This means that the only parts you can relicense are the bits you wrote .
You ca n't relicense any of the bits other people wrote without their approval .
Having multiple authors in a projects makes your life significantly more complicated , legally speaking .
It 's vitally important to keep a record of any contributions you 've received to a project .
The FSF actually require all contributors to their official projects to sign over copyright to them so that they legally own the contributions , simply to avoid the problem of having multiple authors .
This has been a problem with some semi-open-source projects .
I remember that the sparse compiler frontend , which had a rather strange and legally dubious license , is now unable to relicense the source to something more sensible because some of the authors no longer exist , which means their approval can not be obtained .
So you need to be very careful here .
Producing a commercial license simply may not be an option for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you ever received any contributions?
As the author, you are entitled to relicense the software as you see fit.
But if you have ever received a patch from anyone, you are no longer the sole author.
This means that the only parts you can relicense are the bits you wrote.
You can't relicense any of the bits other people wrote without their approval.
Having multiple authors in a projects makes your life significantly more complicated, legally speaking.
It's vitally important to keep a record of any contributions you've received to a project.
The FSF actually require all contributors to their official projects to sign over copyright to them so that they legally own the contributions, simply to avoid the problem of having multiple authors.
This has been a problem with some semi-open-source projects.
I remember that the sparse compiler frontend, which had a rather strange and legally dubious license, is now unable to relicense the source to something more sensible because some of the authors no longer exist, which means their approval cannot be obtained.
So you need to be very careful here.
Producing a commercial license simply may not be an option for you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30797986</id>
	<title>Get your own experienced license lawyer ...</title>
	<author>Skapare</author>
	<datestamp>1263740760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... before following any of the above advice.  By all means do NOT let the client/customer write the license or you will end up being liable for everything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... before following any of the above advice .
By all means do NOT let the client/customer write the license or you will end up being liable for everything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... before following any of the above advice.
By all means do NOT let the client/customer write the license or you will end up being liable for everything.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30796888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30798748</id>
	<title>BSD isn't an open source license</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263747060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The BSD license is a take it or leave it license. If you want a real open source license you'd better go with the GPL</p><p>There. Let the flames begin.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The BSD license is a take it or leave it license .
If you want a real open source license you 'd better go with the GPLThere .
Let the flames begin .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The BSD license is a take it or leave it license.
If you want a real open source license you'd better go with the GPLThere.
Let the flames begin.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30797310</id>
	<title>Re:dont give in</title>
	<author>Dr\_Barnowl</author>
	<datestamp>1263730740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's just foolish pride ; the license the code is already under explicitly doesn't compel them to give back. BSD licensing is a businesses wet dream - they get to do what the hell they like, and not give anything back.</p><p>If they want to throw money around to create some illusion of reduced liability with the source code, let them. And enjoy whatever it buys you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's just foolish pride ; the license the code is already under explicitly does n't compel them to give back .
BSD licensing is a businesses wet dream - they get to do what the hell they like , and not give anything back.If they want to throw money around to create some illusion of reduced liability with the source code , let them .
And enjoy whatever it buys you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's just foolish pride ; the license the code is already under explicitly doesn't compel them to give back.
BSD licensing is a businesses wet dream - they get to do what the hell they like, and not give anything back.If they want to throw money around to create some illusion of reduced liability with the source code, let them.
And enjoy whatever it buys you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30796246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795690</id>
	<title>Re:Charge a monster price</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263658440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If the terms of the BSD license is not good enough, I'd tell them to piss off.</p></div><p>I don't know. I'd tell them to pay $5,000 for the closed license version. I suspect that the company does not want to mention in <i>their</i> licensing terms that BSD code is used in their end product. Probably because they think it less than professional. Have them pay the 5 dimes. Vanity costs.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the terms of the BSD license is not good enough , I 'd tell them to piss off.I do n't know .
I 'd tell them to pay $ 5,000 for the closed license version .
I suspect that the company does not want to mention in their licensing terms that BSD code is used in their end product .
Probably because they think it less than professional .
Have them pay the 5 dimes .
Vanity costs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the terms of the BSD license is not good enough, I'd tell them to piss off.I don't know.
I'd tell them to pay $5,000 for the closed license version.
I suspect that the company does not want to mention in their licensing terms that BSD code is used in their end product.
Probably because they think it less than professional.
Have them pay the 5 dimes.
Vanity costs.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795606</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30796742</id>
	<title>Re:Dual-license</title>
	<author>nacturation</author>
	<datestamp>1263720240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He's not asking if it's possible.  His question, in part, was: "... are there examples of such licenses that I can provide?"  In other words, has the text of a closed source license been open sourced such that anyone can use if for their closed source licensing needs?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He 's not asking if it 's possible .
His question , in part , was : " ... are there examples of such licenses that I can provide ?
" In other words , has the text of a closed source license been open sourced such that anyone can use if for their closed source licensing needs ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He's not asking if it's possible.
His question, in part, was: "... are there examples of such licenses that I can provide?
"  In other words, has the text of a closed source license been open sourced such that anyone can use if for their closed source licensing needs?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795572</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795958</id>
	<title>Re:What?</title>
	<author>SwashbucklingCowboy</author>
	<datestamp>1263662100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Is that even legal?"</p><p>Of course it is.  What a silly question.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Is that even legal ?
" Of course it is .
What a silly question .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Is that even legal?
"Of course it is.
What a silly question.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795654</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30796038</id>
	<title>Re:Dual-license</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263663300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not Karma whoring here, but my reply to "Dual License"<blockquote><div><p>As long as the software/library is written completely by yourself, you're free to pick any license -- or dual-license it.<br> <br>

You can have your program both licensed under BSD, and also offer the same code/library as closed-source for $xx at the same time, with different conditions and fewer restrictions.<br> <br>

An example of other software that uses the dual-licensing approach is MySQL: for more information see <a href="http://www.mysql.com/news-and-events/newsletter/2003-11/a0000000220.html" title="mysql.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.mysql.com/news-and-events/newsletter/2003-11/a0000000220.html</a> [mysql.com] [mysql.com]</p></div></blockquote><p>
has been modded <b> <i>Offtopic</i></b><nobr> <wbr></nobr>.<br> <br> Do moderators have problems with basic comprehension on Sundays? The poster recommended the dual MySQL licence - My reply shows that dual licencing is causing a problem with a dual licence product; or maybe a Monty Widenius/MySQL fanboi is modding today...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not Karma whoring here , but my reply to " Dual License " As long as the software/library is written completely by yourself , you 're free to pick any license -- or dual-license it .
You can have your program both licensed under BSD , and also offer the same code/library as closed-source for $ xx at the same time , with different conditions and fewer restrictions .
An example of other software that uses the dual-licensing approach is MySQL : for more information see http : //www.mysql.com/news-and-events/newsletter/2003-11/a0000000220.html [ mysql.com ] [ mysql.com ] has been modded Offtopic .
Do moderators have problems with basic comprehension on Sundays ?
The poster recommended the dual MySQL licence - My reply shows that dual licencing is causing a problem with a dual licence product ; or maybe a Monty Widenius/MySQL fanboi is modding today.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not Karma whoring here, but my reply to "Dual License"As long as the software/library is written completely by yourself, you're free to pick any license -- or dual-license it.
You can have your program both licensed under BSD, and also offer the same code/library as closed-source for $xx at the same time, with different conditions and fewer restrictions.
An example of other software that uses the dual-licensing approach is MySQL: for more information see http://www.mysql.com/news-and-events/newsletter/2003-11/a0000000220.html [mysql.com] [mysql.com]
has been modded  Offtopic .
Do moderators have problems with basic comprehension on Sundays?
The poster recommended the dual MySQL licence - My reply shows that dual licencing is causing a problem with a dual licence product; or maybe a Monty Widenius/MySQL fanboi is modding today...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30797846</id>
	<title>Special license</title>
	<author>QuietLagoon</author>
	<datestamp>1263739560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Give him a choice between a special closed-source license that requires him to pay $1,000,000 to you each year, or the BSD open-source license.    I am sure his opinion about "forcing open source licenses" upon the developer will change.

<p>aside: he is probably reacting [poorly] to the "GPL is a virus" garbage spewed by Microsoft.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Give him a choice between a special closed-source license that requires him to pay $ 1,000,000 to you each year , or the BSD open-source license .
I am sure his opinion about " forcing open source licenses " upon the developer will change .
aside : he is probably reacting [ poorly ] to the " GPL is a virus " garbage spewed by Microsoft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Give him a choice between a special closed-source license that requires him to pay $1,000,000 to you each year, or the BSD open-source license.
I am sure his opinion about "forcing open source licenses" upon the developer will change.
aside: he is probably reacting [poorly] to the "GPL is a virus" garbage spewed by Microsoft.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795948</id>
	<title>Never Heard of Banning All Open Source</title>
	<author>SwashbucklingCowboy</author>
	<datestamp>1263661980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But my company does contractually forbid GPL software being included in any software written for use in our products.</p><p>Your problem is easily solved by just modifying the existing license to forbid redistribution of the source code.  That would make the license no longer open source.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But my company does contractually forbid GPL software being included in any software written for use in our products.Your problem is easily solved by just modifying the existing license to forbid redistribution of the source code .
That would make the license no longer open source .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But my company does contractually forbid GPL software being included in any software written for use in our products.Your problem is easily solved by just modifying the existing license to forbid redistribution of the source code.
That would make the license no longer open source.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30796864</id>
	<title>Re:Charge a monster price</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263722640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Could it also be that the only reason to request another license scheme might be a back door to claiming ownership for themselves in a future patent filing? (Wouldn't be the first time somebody claimed ownership of something that had been long ago created freely by another...)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Could it also be that the only reason to request another license scheme might be a back door to claiming ownership for themselves in a future patent filing ?
( Would n't be the first time somebody claimed ownership of something that had been long ago created freely by another... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could it also be that the only reason to request another license scheme might be a back door to claiming ownership for themselves in a future patent filing?
(Wouldn't be the first time somebody claimed ownership of something that had been long ago created freely by another...)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795606</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30798508</id>
	<title>Sell them a support contract</title>
	<author>Jimmy\_B</author>
	<datestamp>1263745200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If a company wants to pay you money for software you wrote, then for the love of god, take it, and give them whatever license they want. They don't actually need a different license, but that doesn't matter because what they're really after is support, not licensing. So write up an N-year support contract where you promise to take their calls and promptly fix any bugs they report, and charge appropriately for it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If a company wants to pay you money for software you wrote , then for the love of god , take it , and give them whatever license they want .
They do n't actually need a different license , but that does n't matter because what they 're really after is support , not licensing .
So write up an N-year support contract where you promise to take their calls and promptly fix any bugs they report , and charge appropriately for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If a company wants to pay you money for software you wrote, then for the love of god, take it, and give them whatever license they want.
They don't actually need a different license, but that doesn't matter because what they're really after is support, not licensing.
So write up an N-year support contract where you promise to take their calls and promptly fix any bugs they report, and charge appropriately for it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30796468</id>
	<title>Re:  Banning Open Source</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263671460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not only is it legal but it is depressingly common in some, ah, less IT savvy industries who have bought the FUD that Open Source software is a security risk - by definition.</p><p>Yes, I have had customers insist on buying MS SQL Server licenses because MySQL is Open Source and therefore completely banned in their company (and, I was assured, their industry generally).   Not suprisingly, all the major vendors in that industry are MS Gold Partners and all the companies list as major MS accounts.  Chicken or Egg?</p><p>You need to understand whether their problem is with the license or with the fact that Other People have access to the source code.   If it is the former, you can write a new licence and double your fees. If it is the latter you will need to do a significant re-write to meet that requirement (and charge accordingly).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not only is it legal but it is depressingly common in some , ah , less IT savvy industries who have bought the FUD that Open Source software is a security risk - by definition.Yes , I have had customers insist on buying MS SQL Server licenses because MySQL is Open Source and therefore completely banned in their company ( and , I was assured , their industry generally ) .
Not suprisingly , all the major vendors in that industry are MS Gold Partners and all the companies list as major MS accounts .
Chicken or Egg ? You need to understand whether their problem is with the license or with the fact that Other People have access to the source code .
If it is the former , you can write a new licence and double your fees .
If it is the latter you will need to do a significant re-write to meet that requirement ( and charge accordingly ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not only is it legal but it is depressingly common in some, ah, less IT savvy industries who have bought the FUD that Open Source software is a security risk - by definition.Yes, I have had customers insist on buying MS SQL Server licenses because MySQL is Open Source and therefore completely banned in their company (and, I was assured, their industry generally).
Not suprisingly, all the major vendors in that industry are MS Gold Partners and all the companies list as major MS accounts.
Chicken or Egg?You need to understand whether their problem is with the license or with the fact that Other People have access to the source code.
If it is the former, you can write a new licence and double your fees.
If it is the latter you will need to do a significant re-write to meet that requirement (and charge accordingly).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795654</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30797110</id>
	<title>Re:BSD</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263727380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The BSD license is already more permissive than any other license...</p></div><p>except, perhaps, for the 2-clause ISC license.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The BSD license is already more permissive than any other license...except , perhaps , for the 2-clause ISC license .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The BSD license is already more permissive than any other license...except, perhaps, for the 2-clause ISC license.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30796662</id>
	<title>SQLite is licensed with option for paid license</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263761400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>It can be used as one wants but they also offer a license for the occasions like you've specified. Check out: <br>
<br> <a href="http://www.hwaci.com/cgi-bin/license-step1" title="hwaci.com">http://www.hwaci.com/cgi-bin/license-step1</a> [hwaci.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>It can be used as one wants but they also offer a license for the occasions like you 've specified .
Check out : http : //www.hwaci.com/cgi-bin/license-step1 [ hwaci.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It can be used as one wants but they also offer a license for the occasions like you've specified.
Check out: 
 http://www.hwaci.com/cgi-bin/license-step1 [hwaci.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795620</id>
	<title>BSD</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263657720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The BSD license is already more permissive than any other license, and allows code to be used in proprietary products. There is nothing that a proprietary license would let them do that BSD will not, thus there is no justification for them to subject you to the trouble of researching this just because their policies are written by stupid people.</p><p>By making this clear to the people you work with, you could do the public understanding of free software a favor. By bowing to their obscene requests arising from ignorance, you would admit defeat in the face of the FUD coming out of places like Microsoft.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The BSD license is already more permissive than any other license , and allows code to be used in proprietary products .
There is nothing that a proprietary license would let them do that BSD will not , thus there is no justification for them to subject you to the trouble of researching this just because their policies are written by stupid people.By making this clear to the people you work with , you could do the public understanding of free software a favor .
By bowing to their obscene requests arising from ignorance , you would admit defeat in the face of the FUD coming out of places like Microsoft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The BSD license is already more permissive than any other license, and allows code to be used in proprietary products.
There is nothing that a proprietary license would let them do that BSD will not, thus there is no justification for them to subject you to the trouble of researching this just because their policies are written by stupid people.By making this clear to the people you work with, you could do the public understanding of free software a favor.
By bowing to their obscene requests arising from ignorance, you would admit defeat in the face of the FUD coming out of places like Microsoft.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30797760</id>
	<title>Re:Dual-license</title>
	<author>Yvanhoe</author>
	<datestamp>1263738720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And make stupidity on the company's part profitable for you : offer them the license they like for a price.<br> <br>
Also be very careful that the company's license will not forbid you from continuing to offer BSD-style licenses</htmltext>
<tokenext>And make stupidity on the company 's part profitable for you : offer them the license they like for a price .
Also be very careful that the company 's license will not forbid you from continuing to offer BSD-style licenses</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And make stupidity on the company's part profitable for you : offer them the license they like for a price.
Also be very careful that the company's license will not forbid you from continuing to offer BSD-style licenses</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795572</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30799850</id>
	<title>Re:Dual-license</title>
	<author>Foofoobar</author>
	<datestamp>1263756240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It should be mentioned that the licenses CANNOT CONFLICT. If you release code under the GPL and then under a closed source license, If you code is the same in both versions or contains the same code (or even similar enough), it can be argued that it is in violation of the GPL if they do not include the source code (even if their version was given to them under a different license).<br> <br>

When you do things like this, you have to make sure that the two versions of licenses are compatible and this requires a LONG talk with a lawyer or at the very least posting this to the EFF or the FSF mailing lists to see if someone can come up with a fool proof solution without having to maintain two separate code branchs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It should be mentioned that the licenses CAN NOT CONFLICT .
If you release code under the GPL and then under a closed source license , If you code is the same in both versions or contains the same code ( or even similar enough ) , it can be argued that it is in violation of the GPL if they do not include the source code ( even if their version was given to them under a different license ) .
When you do things like this , you have to make sure that the two versions of licenses are compatible and this requires a LONG talk with a lawyer or at the very least posting this to the EFF or the FSF mailing lists to see if someone can come up with a fool proof solution without having to maintain two separate code branchs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It should be mentioned that the licenses CANNOT CONFLICT.
If you release code under the GPL and then under a closed source license, If you code is the same in both versions or contains the same code (or even similar enough), it can be argued that it is in violation of the GPL if they do not include the source code (even if their version was given to them under a different license).
When you do things like this, you have to make sure that the two versions of licenses are compatible and this requires a LONG talk with a lawyer or at the very least posting this to the EFF or the FSF mailing lists to see if someone can come up with a fool proof solution without having to maintain two separate code branchs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795572</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795834</id>
	<title>Let them write the license</title>
	<author>swillden</author>
	<datestamp>1263660300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They want it, let them write it and specify the terms.  You just need to read it to make sure that it doesn't limit your ability to continue giving the code away.

</p><p>I'd let them pick the dollar amount for the licensing fee, too.  Tell them to make a proposal, on both fee and terms, and you'll decide if it's acceptable.  Odds are they'll offer you terms and money in roughly the same ballpark as what commercial software of the same type would cost.

</p><p>Be certain that you own 100\% of the code though.  You don't want to get yourself in trouble for selling someone else's property.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They want it , let them write it and specify the terms .
You just need to read it to make sure that it does n't limit your ability to continue giving the code away .
I 'd let them pick the dollar amount for the licensing fee , too .
Tell them to make a proposal , on both fee and terms , and you 'll decide if it 's acceptable .
Odds are they 'll offer you terms and money in roughly the same ballpark as what commercial software of the same type would cost .
Be certain that you own 100 \ % of the code though .
You do n't want to get yourself in trouble for selling someone else 's property .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They want it, let them write it and specify the terms.
You just need to read it to make sure that it doesn't limit your ability to continue giving the code away.
I'd let them pick the dollar amount for the licensing fee, too.
Tell them to make a proposal, on both fee and terms, and you'll decide if it's acceptable.
Odds are they'll offer you terms and money in roughly the same ballpark as what commercial software of the same type would cost.
Be certain that you own 100\% of the code though.
You don't want to get yourself in trouble for selling someone else's property.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30797040</id>
	<title>Re:Charge a monster price</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263725880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yay typical OS zealot response. I hope your idiotic ideology pays your bills when you drive away customers who have very bloody simple requests.</p><p>Queue troll mod in 3....2....1.....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yay typical OS zealot response .
I hope your idiotic ideology pays your bills when you drive away customers who have very bloody simple requests.Queue troll mod in 3....2....1.... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yay typical OS zealot response.
I hope your idiotic ideology pays your bills when you drive away customers who have very bloody simple requests.Queue troll mod in 3....2....1.....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795606</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30797380</id>
	<title>More permissive? Depends on perspective...</title>
	<author>RichiH</author>
	<datestamp>1263731760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; The BSD license is already more permissive than any other license, and allows code to be used in proprietary products.</p><p>Not quite. More permissive to the direct user, potentially a lot less permissive for anyone after that.</p><p>BSD wants to give all freedoms and thus gives up a certain portion willfully.<br>GPL is not quite as permissive, but keeps that level for everyone down the stream.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; The BSD license is already more permissive than any other license , and allows code to be used in proprietary products.Not quite .
More permissive to the direct user , potentially a lot less permissive for anyone after that.BSD wants to give all freedoms and thus gives up a certain portion willfully.GPL is not quite as permissive , but keeps that level for everyone down the stream .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; The BSD license is already more permissive than any other license, and allows code to be used in proprietary products.Not quite.
More permissive to the direct user, potentially a lot less permissive for anyone after that.BSD wants to give all freedoms and thus gives up a certain portion willfully.GPL is not quite as permissive, but keeps that level for everyone down the stream.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30800930</id>
	<title>they want you,</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263721200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>see, what they want is you - you proved high talent and that's what they want; they want you to give up your alternatives and become their property so that they can make use/abuse of you without you having a backup to tell them f**k up and leave.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>see , what they want is you - you proved high talent and that 's what they want ; they want you to give up your alternatives and become their property so that they can make use/abuse of you without you having a backup to tell them f * * k up and leave .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>see, what they want is you - you proved high talent and that's what they want; they want you to give up your alternatives and become their property so that they can make use/abuse of you without you having a backup to tell them f**k up and leave.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30803778</id>
	<title>Re:BSD</title>
	<author>UnderCoverPenguin</author>
	<datestamp>1263742740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There is nothing that a proprietary license would let them do that BSD will not</p></div><p>A proprietary license gives them some one to blame.</p><p>Also, many businesses fear open source because they think that that will provide adversaries with too much information about how their product works. Often times they would rather re-invent something than use open source.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is nothing that a proprietary license would let them do that BSD will notA proprietary license gives them some one to blame.Also , many businesses fear open source because they think that that will provide adversaries with too much information about how their product works .
Often times they would rather re-invent something than use open source .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is nothing that a proprietary license would let them do that BSD will notA proprietary license gives them some one to blame.Also, many businesses fear open source because they think that that will provide adversaries with too much information about how their product works.
Often times they would rather re-invent something than use open source.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795606</id>
	<title>Charge a monster price</title>
	<author>Stumbles</author>
	<datestamp>1263657600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>If the terms of the BSD license is not good enough, I'd tell them to piss off.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the terms of the BSD license is not good enough , I 'd tell them to piss off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the terms of the BSD license is not good enough, I'd tell them to piss off.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30796150</id>
	<title>To sum up</title>
	<author>ibsteve2u</author>
	<datestamp>1263665280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>If there had been copyrights and patents at the dawn of man, the first and last tool invented would have been the stick; lawyers, lawsuits, and the judges of Eastern Texas would have prevented all derivative works.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If there had been copyrights and patents at the dawn of man , the first and last tool invented would have been the stick ; lawyers , lawsuits , and the judges of Eastern Texas would have prevented all derivative works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If there had been copyrights and patents at the dawn of man, the first and last tool invented would have been the stick; lawyers, lawsuits, and the judges of Eastern Texas would have prevented all derivative works.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30800462</id>
	<title>it's not that hard...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263761460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just dual license and allow them to skip the copyright acknowledgement. In effect sell the code to them. You are allowed to dual license it as long as you didn't use anyone else's code as part of your own, or maybe got it from public domain code. They just don't want anyone's name but their own in their acknowledgments box. Also to make a little extra money let them know that you will allow them to buy an annual support license from you. If you don't want to do that then just sale the code and move on. No big debate here like some slashdot geeks seem to think.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just dual license and allow them to skip the copyright acknowledgement .
In effect sell the code to them .
You are allowed to dual license it as long as you did n't use anyone else 's code as part of your own , or maybe got it from public domain code .
They just do n't want anyone 's name but their own in their acknowledgments box .
Also to make a little extra money let them know that you will allow them to buy an annual support license from you .
If you do n't want to do that then just sale the code and move on .
No big debate here like some slashdot geeks seem to think .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just dual license and allow them to skip the copyright acknowledgement.
In effect sell the code to them.
You are allowed to dual license it as long as you didn't use anyone else's code as part of your own, or maybe got it from public domain code.
They just don't want anyone's name but their own in their acknowledgments box.
Also to make a little extra money let them know that you will allow them to buy an annual support license from you.
If you don't want to do that then just sale the code and move on.
No big debate here like some slashdot geeks seem to think.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30796246</id>
	<title>dont give in</title>
	<author>johnrpenner</author>
	<datestamp>1263667140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>they see what has been freely given (open source) as valuable to their business, yet they dont want to give something back - so, dont give in - this is exactly the sort of thing open source was invented to prevent - if they're so greedy that they think they dont have to give anything back - well then - they can just live without those freely-given benefits. they're inflexible- why should open licensors have to bend for the sake of their greed??</p><p>2cents<br>jp</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>they see what has been freely given ( open source ) as valuable to their business , yet they dont want to give something back - so , dont give in - this is exactly the sort of thing open source was invented to prevent - if they 're so greedy that they think they dont have to give anything back - well then - they can just live without those freely-given benefits .
they 're inflexible- why should open licensors have to bend for the sake of their greed ?
? 2centsjp</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they see what has been freely given (open source) as valuable to their business, yet they dont want to give something back - so, dont give in - this is exactly the sort of thing open source was invented to prevent - if they're so greedy that they think they dont have to give anything back - well then - they can just live without those freely-given benefits.
they're inflexible- why should open licensors have to bend for the sake of their greed?
?2centsjp</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30798730</id>
	<title>Re: Banning Open Source</title>
	<author>Courageous</author>
	<datestamp>1263746880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sounds like management at your company has its head firmly up the proverbial dark spot.</p><p>I work at one of the world's largest defense companies.</p><p>We may integrate open source, for our DEFENSE CUSTOMERS, into our defense projects, insofar as we follow certain rules.</p><p>The primary two rules are:</p><p>1. The source from which we obtain the open source product must be domestically located, and a significant commercial operation. E.g., Red Hat, or:<br>1b. We review every line of code ourselves for security purposes, and<br>2. The license, and our approach to the use of the licensed product, must be one already approved by legal.</p><p>Stock licenses such as BSD, Apache, GPL, LGPL are all approved according to specific use cases.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like management at your company has its head firmly up the proverbial dark spot.I work at one of the world 's largest defense companies.We may integrate open source , for our DEFENSE CUSTOMERS , into our defense projects , insofar as we follow certain rules.The primary two rules are : 1 .
The source from which we obtain the open source product must be domestically located , and a significant commercial operation .
E.g. , Red Hat , or : 1b .
We review every line of code ourselves for security purposes , and2 .
The license , and our approach to the use of the licensed product , must be one already approved by legal.Stock licenses such as BSD , Apache , GPL , LGPL are all approved according to specific use cases .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like management at your company has its head firmly up the proverbial dark spot.I work at one of the world's largest defense companies.We may integrate open source, for our DEFENSE CUSTOMERS, into our defense projects, insofar as we follow certain rules.The primary two rules are:1.
The source from which we obtain the open source product must be domestically located, and a significant commercial operation.
E.g., Red Hat, or:1b.
We review every line of code ourselves for security purposes, and2.
The license, and our approach to the use of the licensed product, must be one already approved by legal.Stock licenses such as BSD, Apache, GPL, LGPL are all approved according to specific use cases.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30796468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30796290</id>
	<title>multi-theft auto..</title>
	<author>XaXXon</author>
	<datestamp>1263667920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>wanted to use a gpl embedded c/c++ web server I wrote.  One of the developers sent me an email asking if they could use it.  I sent them an email to the extent of "I hereby grant you a license to use EHS (the library) in any way in multi-theft auto."</p><p>Either that was good enough for them or they didn't decide to use it afterall.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>wanted to use a gpl embedded c/c + + web server I wrote .
One of the developers sent me an email asking if they could use it .
I sent them an email to the extent of " I hereby grant you a license to use EHS ( the library ) in any way in multi-theft auto .
" Either that was good enough for them or they did n't decide to use it afterall .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>wanted to use a gpl embedded c/c++ web server I wrote.
One of the developers sent me an email asking if they could use it.
I sent them an email to the extent of "I hereby grant you a license to use EHS (the library) in any way in multi-theft auto.
"Either that was good enough for them or they didn't decide to use it afterall.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795632</id>
	<title>Just do it</title>
	<author>LowlyWorm</author>
	<datestamp>1263657840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why not write just a separate version for commercial use? If there is demand for the product, license it and make money yourself. You could modify the terms within reasonable limits useful to your particular situation. I do not understand the aversion of companies not to use open source software except to provide some level of prestige to their own product licensing (and perhaps to limit their their liability if you really screw up). IMHO, as a matter of practice few scrutinize licensing agreements to the degree that it would matter to the the end user that open source code is used unless you are dealing with very large companies that face litigation on  a regular basis.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not write just a separate version for commercial use ?
If there is demand for the product , license it and make money yourself .
You could modify the terms within reasonable limits useful to your particular situation .
I do not understand the aversion of companies not to use open source software except to provide some level of prestige to their own product licensing ( and perhaps to limit their their liability if you really screw up ) .
IMHO , as a matter of practice few scrutinize licensing agreements to the degree that it would matter to the the end user that open source code is used unless you are dealing with very large companies that face litigation on a regular basis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not write just a separate version for commercial use?
If there is demand for the product, license it and make money yourself.
You could modify the terms within reasonable limits useful to your particular situation.
I do not understand the aversion of companies not to use open source software except to provide some level of prestige to their own product licensing (and perhaps to limit their their liability if you really screw up).
IMHO, as a matter of practice few scrutinize licensing agreements to the degree that it would matter to the the end user that open source code is used unless you are dealing with very large companies that face litigation on  a regular basis.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30796848</id>
	<title>Re:Dual-license</title>
	<author>hubert.lepicki</author>
	<datestamp>1263722340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hi,</p><p>I think not, you are wrong. If the software is on a BSD license, I can license it to you on different terms even if I *did not* write this software.</p><p>I do not have to be the creator of such library to license it to you, in fact I can do any derivative work and license it differently.</p><p>H</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hi,I think not , you are wrong .
If the software is on a BSD license , I can license it to you on different terms even if I * did not * write this software.I do not have to be the creator of such library to license it to you , in fact I can do any derivative work and license it differently.H</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hi,I think not, you are wrong.
If the software is on a BSD license, I can license it to you on different terms even if I *did not* write this software.I do not have to be the creator of such library to license it to you, in fact I can do any derivative work and license it differently.H</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795572</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30798028</id>
	<title>open source is shit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263741240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>suck my dick you faggot open source fags.</htmltext>
<tokenext>suck my dick you faggot open source fags .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>suck my dick you faggot open source fags.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30796100</id>
	<title>"Forgidding Open Source"?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263664260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are they stupid?  As Apple can clearly demonstrate, the BSD license is non-toxic.  You should tell them to tell their legal staff to do their homework (and justify their paycheck) to learn the differences between one open source license and another.  Simply banning all open source licenses is as stupid as declaring all muslims as terrorists.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are they stupid ?
As Apple can clearly demonstrate , the BSD license is non-toxic .
You should tell them to tell their legal staff to do their homework ( and justify their paycheck ) to learn the differences between one open source license and another .
Simply banning all open source licenses is as stupid as declaring all muslims as terrorists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are they stupid?
As Apple can clearly demonstrate, the BSD license is non-toxic.
You should tell them to tell their legal staff to do their homework (and justify their paycheck) to learn the differences between one open source license and another.
Simply banning all open source licenses is as stupid as declaring all muslims as terrorists.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30797414</id>
	<title>Re:dont give in</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1263732420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The submitter chose the BSD license for many of his projects. He clearly disagrees with you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The submitter chose the BSD license for many of his projects .
He clearly disagrees with you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The submitter chose the BSD license for many of his projects.
He clearly disagrees with you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30796246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795944</id>
	<title>Thank them for their support</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263661860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...  and dual-license your software as a closed-source license.  Charge them a license ($10,000), or possibly a royalty ($1 per copy) for usage of your code.  Use this money to continue to develop and improve your code.  Dollar figures are for example only, you'll have to negotiate that with them.</p><p>This is a great way to get paid for developing your Open Source project!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... and dual-license your software as a closed-source license .
Charge them a license ( $ 10,000 ) , or possibly a royalty ( $ 1 per copy ) for usage of your code .
Use this money to continue to develop and improve your code .
Dollar figures are for example only , you 'll have to negotiate that with them.This is a great way to get paid for developing your Open Source project !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...  and dual-license your software as a closed-source license.
Charge them a license ($10,000), or possibly a royalty ($1 per copy) for usage of your code.
Use this money to continue to develop and improve your code.
Dollar figures are for example only, you'll have to negotiate that with them.This is a great way to get paid for developing your Open Source project!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30799286</id>
	<title>Once Free, always Free... but still possible.</title>
	<author>SharpFang</author>
	<datestamp>1263751740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The way to do it is this:<br>(technically it may look different but this is the legal gist.)</p><p>You have the Trunk under a closeware license. It essentially says "nobody can copy, use this or do anything with it unless I say otherwise. I can change this license at will" You develop it and create a stable version, say, 1.0. Then you create a branch 1.0-free, and a branch 1.0-proprietary. One is GNU, the other has some EULA. You still develop Trunk, but you don't develop Free or Proprietary any more, just as soon as you reach "Stable" in Trunk you create new Free and Proprietary branches. You may port customer-supplied patches from Proprietary to Trunk and Free just fine. But you can't port community-submitted patches of Free to the other two - you have to rewrite them from scratch in Trunk, and once done they may replace the community-submitted in Free and enter Proprietary too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The way to do it is this : ( technically it may look different but this is the legal gist .
) You have the Trunk under a closeware license .
It essentially says " nobody can copy , use this or do anything with it unless I say otherwise .
I can change this license at will " You develop it and create a stable version , say , 1.0 .
Then you create a branch 1.0-free , and a branch 1.0-proprietary .
One is GNU , the other has some EULA .
You still develop Trunk , but you do n't develop Free or Proprietary any more , just as soon as you reach " Stable " in Trunk you create new Free and Proprietary branches .
You may port customer-supplied patches from Proprietary to Trunk and Free just fine .
But you ca n't port community-submitted patches of Free to the other two - you have to rewrite them from scratch in Trunk , and once done they may replace the community-submitted in Free and enter Proprietary too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The way to do it is this:(technically it may look different but this is the legal gist.
)You have the Trunk under a closeware license.
It essentially says "nobody can copy, use this or do anything with it unless I say otherwise.
I can change this license at will" You develop it and create a stable version, say, 1.0.
Then you create a branch 1.0-free, and a branch 1.0-proprietary.
One is GNU, the other has some EULA.
You still develop Trunk, but you don't develop Free or Proprietary any more, just as soon as you reach "Stable" in Trunk you create new Free and Proprietary branches.
You may port customer-supplied patches from Proprietary to Trunk and Free just fine.
But you can't port community-submitted patches of Free to the other two - you have to rewrite them from scratch in Trunk, and once done they may replace the community-submitted in Free and enter Proprietary too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_014215_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30796864
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795606
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_014215_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30797348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30796888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_014215_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30796894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795620
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_014215_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795572
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_014215_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30819176
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30796888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_014215_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795564
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_014215_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30803778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795620
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_014215_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795606
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_014215_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30797398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795606
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_014215_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30800320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795606
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_014215_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30796996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795620
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_014215_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30796742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795572
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_014215_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30797414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30796246
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_014215_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30796724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795606
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_014215_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795564
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_014215_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30798830
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795564
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_014215_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30797360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795572
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_014215_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30798200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795572
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_014215_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30799850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795572
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_014215_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30797380
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795620
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_014215_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30807538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30796458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795620
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_014215_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30797110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795620
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_014215_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795654
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_014215_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30797480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795620
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_014215_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30797986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30796888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_014215_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30796464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30796038
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795572
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_014215_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795654
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_014215_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30796848
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795572
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_014215_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30797310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30796246
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_014215_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30796436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795654
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_014215_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30797370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795606
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_014215_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30799886
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795606
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_014215_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30797760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795572
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_014215_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30798730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30796468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795654
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_014215_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30797386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795654
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_014215_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30797040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795606
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_014215_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30799570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795654
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_014215.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30796188
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_014215.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795654
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30797386
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30799570
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795738
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795958
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30796436
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30796468
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30798730
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_014215.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795606
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795670
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795938
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30796724
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30797370
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30797398
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30800320
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30799886
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795690
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30797040
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30796864
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_014215.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30796662
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_014215.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795866
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_014215.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795572
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795618
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30797360
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30797760
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30798200
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30796848
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30799850
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30796742
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795816
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795840
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30796038
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30796464
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_014215.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30796100
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_014215.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795834
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_014215.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795860
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_014215.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30796888
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30819176
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30797986
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30797348
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_014215.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30796246
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30797414
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30797310
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_014215.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795564
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795638
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30798830
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795692
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_014215.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795632
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_014215.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30795620
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30797110
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30797380
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30803778
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30797480
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30796996
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30796894
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30796458
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_014215.30807538
</commentlist>
</conversation>
