<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_22_2240204</id>
	<title>MySQL's Influence On the GPL</title>
	<author>ScuttleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1266837120000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"Ex-MySQL'er Brian Aker goes into the <a href="http://krow.livejournal.com/684068.html">history of MySQL and the GPL</a>. His point is that MySQL used the GPL in an over-reaching manner; and now that MySQL is gone as an entity, and the <a href="http://monty-says.blogspot.com/2009/12/oracle-gives-only-empty-promises-for.html">campaigns are over</a>, that the GPL may return to an accurate definition."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " Ex-MySQL'er Brian Aker goes into the history of MySQL and the GPL .
His point is that MySQL used the GPL in an over-reaching manner ; and now that MySQL is gone as an entity , and the campaigns are over , that the GPL may return to an accurate definition .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "Ex-MySQL'er Brian Aker goes into the history of MySQL and the GPL.
His point is that MySQL used the GPL in an over-reaching manner; and now that MySQL is gone as an entity, and the campaigns are over, that the GPL may return to an accurate definition.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31242102</id>
	<title>Re:If MySQL over-reached with the GPL, tell the FS</title>
	<author>countertop</author>
	<datestamp>1266918660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I like this post</htmltext>
<tokenext>I like this post</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like this post</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31238024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31238688</id>
	<title>Re:Not the only project to work this way.</title>
	<author>John Whitley</author>
	<datestamp>1266845160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>some companies don't want to pay the fees necessary for a small battalion of lawyers to confirm its use on a server platform or within a product.</p></div><p>It doesn't take a "battalion of lawyers".  It just takes a working relationship with qualified legal counsel, who is knowledgable in modern software copyright issues.  It used to be that such folks were scarce as hen's teeth, but now you mostly just have to know enough to ask for and retain the right attorney or firm, on the terms appropriate for your size of business.  Development will need to participate, but mostly this comes down to educating the team(s) to percolate up requests like: "hey, I'd like to use package X which has license Y, is that license OK?"  This query either hits cache ("license Y is known to be {good,bad}"), or misses and becomes a review request to an attorney.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>some companies do n't want to pay the fees necessary for a small battalion of lawyers to confirm its use on a server platform or within a product.It does n't take a " battalion of lawyers " .
It just takes a working relationship with qualified legal counsel , who is knowledgable in modern software copyright issues .
It used to be that such folks were scarce as hen 's teeth , but now you mostly just have to know enough to ask for and retain the right attorney or firm , on the terms appropriate for your size of business .
Development will need to participate , but mostly this comes down to educating the team ( s ) to percolate up requests like : " hey , I 'd like to use package X which has license Y , is that license OK ?
" This query either hits cache ( " license Y is known to be { good,bad } " ) , or misses and becomes a review request to an attorney .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>some companies don't want to pay the fees necessary for a small battalion of lawyers to confirm its use on a server platform or within a product.It doesn't take a "battalion of lawyers".
It just takes a working relationship with qualified legal counsel, who is knowledgable in modern software copyright issues.
It used to be that such folks were scarce as hen's teeth, but now you mostly just have to know enough to ask for and retain the right attorney or firm, on the terms appropriate for your size of business.
Development will need to participate, but mostly this comes down to educating the team(s) to percolate up requests like: "hey, I'd like to use package X which has license Y, is that license OK?
"  This query either hits cache ("license Y is known to be {good,bad}"), or misses and becomes a review request to an attorney.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31238150</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31243286</id>
	<title>Re:Licensing for not-Nerds</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266933360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Surely you jest! We can all point to many products that are database agnostic: there are perhaps a billion such products available for download on SourceForge that work with MySQL, PostgreSQL, and maybe Oracle and/or SqlServer.</p></div></blockquote><p>Any product that's tied to specific RDBMS is a pile of old cunt.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Surely you jest !
We can all point to many products that are database agnostic : there are perhaps a billion such products available for download on SourceForge that work with MySQL , PostgreSQL , and maybe Oracle and/or SqlServer.Any product that 's tied to specific RDBMS is a pile of old cunt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Surely you jest!
We can all point to many products that are database agnostic: there are perhaps a billion such products available for download on SourceForge that work with MySQL, PostgreSQL, and maybe Oracle and/or SqlServer.Any product that's tied to specific RDBMS is a pile of old cunt.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31241094</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31263368</id>
	<title>Re:GPL FUD, read again about distribution.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265143140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except the whole point is that it was relicensed under the <i>AGPL</i> (i.e. any web service based around the library has to release its code), and the main use of the code was in websites to generate documents like invoices.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except the whole point is that it was relicensed under the AGPL ( i.e .
any web service based around the library has to release its code ) , and the main use of the code was in websites to generate documents like invoices .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except the whole point is that it was relicensed under the AGPL (i.e.
any web service based around the library has to release its code), and the main use of the code was in websites to generate documents like invoices.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31242162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31241296</id>
	<title>Re:How do you profit from "free"? You start changi</title>
	<author>the\_womble</author>
	<datestamp>1266866340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>People loved when CDDB offered to identify CD's so when ripping you could not have to type everything in for your music app. Many people donated time to this "project"... but once it was done, suddenly developers started to have to pay Gracenote for the data, and"free" music programs went away for paid-for-somehow models like Windows Media Player, iTunes, and the such.</p></div><p>They just used <a href="http://www.freedb.org/en/" title="freedb.org">Free DB</a> [freedb.org] instead. K3B works just fine apart from the dd typo (and checking track names when you rip is not a huge issue).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>People loved when CDDB offered to identify CD 's so when ripping you could not have to type everything in for your music app .
Many people donated time to this " project " ... but once it was done , suddenly developers started to have to pay Gracenote for the data , and " free " music programs went away for paid-for-somehow models like Windows Media Player , iTunes , and the such.They just used Free DB [ freedb.org ] instead .
K3B works just fine apart from the dd typo ( and checking track names when you rip is not a huge issue ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People loved when CDDB offered to identify CD's so when ripping you could not have to type everything in for your music app.
Many people donated time to this "project"... but once it was done, suddenly developers started to have to pay Gracenote for the data, and"free" music programs went away for paid-for-somehow models like Windows Media Player, iTunes, and the such.They just used Free DB [freedb.org] instead.
K3B works just fine apart from the dd typo (and checking track names when you rip is not a huge issue).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31238058</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31248468</id>
	<title>Re:If MySQL over-reached with the GPL, tell the FS</title>
	<author>deananderson</author>
	<datestamp>1266956400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you don't get contributor agreements you didn't get ownership of the contributed code.  You can't assert a copyright on code you don't own.  This was a key element in the SCO/Linux suit. SCO didn't own the code it was claiming infringement on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you do n't get contributor agreements you did n't get ownership of the contributed code .
You ca n't assert a copyright on code you do n't own .
This was a key element in the SCO/Linux suit .
SCO did n't own the code it was claiming infringement on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you don't get contributor agreements you didn't get ownership of the contributed code.
You can't assert a copyright on code you don't own.
This was a key element in the SCO/Linux suit.
SCO didn't own the code it was claiming infringement on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31238024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31240788</id>
	<title>It's amazing how they got away with it</title>
	<author>Punto</author>
	<datestamp>1266860700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I mean, how hard can it be to implement a clean-room version of a mysql client library and make it BSD-like licensed? it's just a client that talks to a server over a socket, using an open and well known protocol. The fact that it never happened tells me that mysql wasn't very irreplaceable at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean , how hard can it be to implement a clean-room version of a mysql client library and make it BSD-like licensed ?
it 's just a client that talks to a server over a socket , using an open and well known protocol .
The fact that it never happened tells me that mysql was n't very irreplaceable at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean, how hard can it be to implement a clean-room version of a mysql client library and make it BSD-like licensed?
it's just a client that talks to a server over a socket, using an open and well known protocol.
The fact that it never happened tells me that mysql wasn't very irreplaceable at all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31242378</id>
	<title>Re:It's Monty again, having his cake and eating it</title>
	<author>montywi</author>
	<datestamp>1266922740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bruce, before claiming something, you should do some basic resources to ensure that you get your facts right.</p><p>- Brian Aker doesn't work for me. He is an old friend, nothing more.<br>- You know Bryan and should know, as all his friends does, that you can't influence what Bryan is saying; He is always speaking his own mind!<br>- I personally never got any 130M USD; Not even a fraction of this. (Can easily be verified as all tax information is public in Finland)<br>- I am not doing business with any rights that has been sold.  My company, Monty Program Ab, is doing business on developing MariaDB, a branch of MySQL. We are fully entitled to do this under GPL.<br>- I have never said or claimed that the GPL affects you over the protocol.  The GPL in MySQL does however affect your application if it is distributed with the MySQL server and/or require the MySQL server to work.<br>- The claim on the MySQL web site about the protocol is the brainchild of other people in the MySQL management (not the MySQL founders), people that you know very well.<br>- It's self evident that you can't go around the GPL license by creating a socket interface around a GPL program/library and use this instead of the original API. If this would be true, then it would be trivial for anyone to circumvent the GPL and it would loose all it's meaning.</p><p>Regards,<br>Monty</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bruce , before claiming something , you should do some basic resources to ensure that you get your facts right.- Brian Aker does n't work for me .
He is an old friend , nothing more.- You know Bryan and should know , as all his friends does , that you ca n't influence what Bryan is saying ; He is always speaking his own mind ! - I personally never got any 130M USD ; Not even a fraction of this .
( Can easily be verified as all tax information is public in Finland ) - I am not doing business with any rights that has been sold .
My company , Monty Program Ab , is doing business on developing MariaDB , a branch of MySQL .
We are fully entitled to do this under GPL.- I have never said or claimed that the GPL affects you over the protocol .
The GPL in MySQL does however affect your application if it is distributed with the MySQL server and/or require the MySQL server to work.- The claim on the MySQL web site about the protocol is the brainchild of other people in the MySQL management ( not the MySQL founders ) , people that you know very well.- It 's self evident that you ca n't go around the GPL license by creating a socket interface around a GPL program/library and use this instead of the original API .
If this would be true , then it would be trivial for anyone to circumvent the GPL and it would loose all it 's meaning.Regards,Monty</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bruce, before claiming something, you should do some basic resources to ensure that you get your facts right.- Brian Aker doesn't work for me.
He is an old friend, nothing more.- You know Bryan and should know, as all his friends does, that you can't influence what Bryan is saying; He is always speaking his own mind!- I personally never got any 130M USD; Not even a fraction of this.
(Can easily be verified as all tax information is public in Finland)- I am not doing business with any rights that has been sold.
My company, Monty Program Ab, is doing business on developing MariaDB, a branch of MySQL.
We are fully entitled to do this under GPL.- I have never said or claimed that the GPL affects you over the protocol.
The GPL in MySQL does however affect your application if it is distributed with the MySQL server and/or require the MySQL server to work.- The claim on the MySQL web site about the protocol is the brainchild of other people in the MySQL management (not the MySQL founders), people that you know very well.- It's self evident that you can't go around the GPL license by creating a socket interface around a GPL program/library and use this instead of the original API.
If this would be true, then it would be trivial for anyone to circumvent the GPL and it would loose all it's meaning.Regards,Monty</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31238544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31239970</id>
	<title>Re:Web hosting</title>
	<author>ducomputergeek</author>
	<datestamp>1266853200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You mean phpPGAdmin?  I don't find it hogs any  more memory than phpMyAdmin.  Now we can use pgAdmin II on the desktop to connect if we want.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean phpPGAdmin ?
I do n't find it hogs any more memory than phpMyAdmin .
Now we can use pgAdmin II on the desktop to connect if we want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean phpPGAdmin?
I don't find it hogs any  more memory than phpMyAdmin.
Now we can use pgAdmin II on the desktop to connect if we want.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31238402</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31247362</id>
	<title>Re:Licensing for not-Nerds</title>
	<author>TemporalBeing</author>
	<datestamp>1266952440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I've often wondered what makes a product "separate". It's a distinction that's forever being debated on the LKML. Is VMWare in violation of Linux Kernel's GPL License? What about ATI's binary driver? What about somebody who sells hardware with a Linux kernel?</p></div><p>According to Linus Torvalds - no they do not. He even somewhat encourages it. See LKML archives for details.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>So do these technical distinctions mean anything at all? Not in the least. And thus, the terms of the GPL would easily and happily apply to the entire product, no matter how technically distinct the pieces.</p></div><p><div class="quote"><p>And sure, you have your opinions on each of these examples, but each of these examples have their own gotchas that would make sense to a significant portion of the population, especially the non-technical part(s) of humanity.</p></div><p>The GPL bows to the author of the work in such cases. Linus Torvalds says pretty much go-ahead; but Nokia/Trolltech say ask the FSF.
<br> <br>
Unfortunately it is a pretty muddy area; but that is part of the freedom sorta...even though it does make it pretty hairy all around.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've often wondered what makes a product " separate " .
It 's a distinction that 's forever being debated on the LKML .
Is VMWare in violation of Linux Kernel 's GPL License ?
What about ATI 's binary driver ?
What about somebody who sells hardware with a Linux kernel ? According to Linus Torvalds - no they do not .
He even somewhat encourages it .
See LKML archives for details.So do these technical distinctions mean anything at all ?
Not in the least .
And thus , the terms of the GPL would easily and happily apply to the entire product , no matter how technically distinct the pieces.And sure , you have your opinions on each of these examples , but each of these examples have their own gotchas that would make sense to a significant portion of the population , especially the non-technical part ( s ) of humanity.The GPL bows to the author of the work in such cases .
Linus Torvalds says pretty much go-ahead ; but Nokia/Trolltech say ask the FSF .
Unfortunately it is a pretty muddy area ; but that is part of the freedom sorta...even though it does make it pretty hairy all around .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've often wondered what makes a product "separate".
It's a distinction that's forever being debated on the LKML.
Is VMWare in violation of Linux Kernel's GPL License?
What about ATI's binary driver?
What about somebody who sells hardware with a Linux kernel?According to Linus Torvalds - no they do not.
He even somewhat encourages it.
See LKML archives for details.So do these technical distinctions mean anything at all?
Not in the least.
And thus, the terms of the GPL would easily and happily apply to the entire product, no matter how technically distinct the pieces.And sure, you have your opinions on each of these examples, but each of these examples have their own gotchas that would make sense to a significant portion of the population, especially the non-technical part(s) of humanity.The GPL bows to the author of the work in such cases.
Linus Torvalds says pretty much go-ahead; but Nokia/Trolltech say ask the FSF.
Unfortunately it is a pretty muddy area; but that is part of the freedom sorta...even though it does make it pretty hairy all around.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31241094</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31239080</id>
	<title>Re:It's Monty again, having his cake and eating it</title>
	<author>krow</author>
	<datestamp>1266847380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hi Bruce!</p><p>I don't work for Monty<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>I also don't work on MariaDB (and never have).</p><p>Please get your facts straight.</p><p>Cheers,<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; -Brian</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hi Bruce ! I do n't work for Monty : ) I also do n't work on MariaDB ( and never have ) .Please get your facts straight.Cheers ,       -Brian</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hi Bruce!I don't work for Monty :)I also don't work on MariaDB (and never have).Please get your facts straight.Cheers,
      -Brian</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31238544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31249806</id>
	<title>Re:It's Monty again, having his cake and eating it</title>
	<author>hingo</author>
	<datestamp>1266917520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uh oh, Bruce, are you having a bad day?</p><p>You could easily verify from Brian's blog that he nowadays works for nobody, having left Sun some days ago. He works on Drizzle, Monty works on MariaDB, different open source projects.</p><p>Monty is spending his time and significant share of money to work on an important GPL licensed piece of software and you're telling him to work on something else?</p><p>Brian is speaking up on something that for many years troubled him at MySQL AB. Last time I met you you yourself said that in your opinion MySQL AB FUDded the GPL. Now you attack Brian because of whom you (wrongly!) think he works for, even if what he's saying is something you (used to?) agree with. Is the truth dependent on who is speaking it?</p><p>What happened? Where is the real Bruce? Did your account get cracked?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uh oh , Bruce , are you having a bad day ? You could easily verify from Brian 's blog that he nowadays works for nobody , having left Sun some days ago .
He works on Drizzle , Monty works on MariaDB , different open source projects.Monty is spending his time and significant share of money to work on an important GPL licensed piece of software and you 're telling him to work on something else ? Brian is speaking up on something that for many years troubled him at MySQL AB .
Last time I met you you yourself said that in your opinion MySQL AB FUDded the GPL .
Now you attack Brian because of whom you ( wrongly !
) think he works for , even if what he 's saying is something you ( used to ?
) agree with .
Is the truth dependent on who is speaking it ? What happened ?
Where is the real Bruce ?
Did your account get cracked ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uh oh, Bruce, are you having a bad day?You could easily verify from Brian's blog that he nowadays works for nobody, having left Sun some days ago.
He works on Drizzle, Monty works on MariaDB, different open source projects.Monty is spending his time and significant share of money to work on an important GPL licensed piece of software and you're telling him to work on something else?Brian is speaking up on something that for many years troubled him at MySQL AB.
Last time I met you you yourself said that in your opinion MySQL AB FUDded the GPL.
Now you attack Brian because of whom you (wrongly!
) think he works for, even if what he's saying is something you (used to?
) agree with.
Is the truth dependent on who is speaking it?What happened?
Where is the real Bruce?
Did your account get cracked?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31238544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31239472</id>
	<title>Re:Not the only project to work this way.</title>
	<author>jedidiah</author>
	<datestamp>1266849780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; What IS the problem however, is the fact that the GPL is a complex legal document</p><p>Nonsense. As legal documents go, it's ridiculously simple. The only time the question of it's "complexity" come up is when people want to either bash it or violate it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; What IS the problem however , is the fact that the GPL is a complex legal documentNonsense .
As legal documents go , it 's ridiculously simple .
The only time the question of it 's " complexity " come up is when people want to either bash it or violate it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; What IS the problem however, is the fact that the GPL is a complex legal documentNonsense.
As legal documents go, it's ridiculously simple.
The only time the question of it's "complexity" come up is when people want to either bash it or violate it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31238150</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31241094</id>
	<title>Licensing for not-Nerds</title>
	<author>mcrbids</author>
	<datestamp>1266863880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I don't think the "overreached" was about the contributor agreements, but rather the MySQL claim that the protocol for talking to the database (sending SQL queries) was GPL. Thus non-GPL software was not allowed to use the database, and you should buy the commercial versions.</i></p><p>To programmers and tech weenies such as ourselves, this statement seems absurd: An SQL stream is part of the product? Surely you jest! We can all point to many products that are database agnostic: there are perhaps a billion such products available for download on SourceForge that work with MySQL, PostgreSQL, and maybe Oracle and/or SqlServer.</p><p>But, for a moment <b>step out of nerd land and into the life of an executive</b>. When you say "database engine" he hears "mwah mah fua bua!" And when you say "SQL Stream" he hears "Muff wa ha dia". But when he sets up a product (such as a Customer Relationship Manager) it's a single product. It might have a half-dozen distinct codebases (DBMS, SQL, PHP, HTML, Javascript, etc.) but <b>even though they are all distinct products in their own right, they are "one product"</b> It's the "Augustus CRM!". It's what he bought.</p><p>So do these technical distinctions mean anything at all? Not in the least. And thus, the terms of the GPL would easily and happily apply to the entire product, no matter how technically distinct the pieces.</p><p>I've often wondered what makes a product "separate". It's a distinction that's forever being debated on the LKML. Is VMWare in violation of Linux Kernel's GPL License? What about ATI's binary driver? What about somebody who sells hardware with a Linux kernel?</p><p>And sure, you have your opinions on each of these examples, but each of these examples have their own gotchas that would make sense to a significant portion of the population, especially the non-technical part(s) of humanity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think the " overreached " was about the contributor agreements , but rather the MySQL claim that the protocol for talking to the database ( sending SQL queries ) was GPL .
Thus non-GPL software was not allowed to use the database , and you should buy the commercial versions.To programmers and tech weenies such as ourselves , this statement seems absurd : An SQL stream is part of the product ?
Surely you jest !
We can all point to many products that are database agnostic : there are perhaps a billion such products available for download on SourceForge that work with MySQL , PostgreSQL , and maybe Oracle and/or SqlServer.But , for a moment step out of nerd land and into the life of an executive .
When you say " database engine " he hears " mwah mah fua bua !
" And when you say " SQL Stream " he hears " Muff wa ha dia " .
But when he sets up a product ( such as a Customer Relationship Manager ) it 's a single product .
It might have a half-dozen distinct codebases ( DBMS , SQL , PHP , HTML , Javascript , etc .
) but even though they are all distinct products in their own right , they are " one product " It 's the " Augustus CRM ! " .
It 's what he bought.So do these technical distinctions mean anything at all ?
Not in the least .
And thus , the terms of the GPL would easily and happily apply to the entire product , no matter how technically distinct the pieces.I 've often wondered what makes a product " separate " .
It 's a distinction that 's forever being debated on the LKML .
Is VMWare in violation of Linux Kernel 's GPL License ?
What about ATI 's binary driver ?
What about somebody who sells hardware with a Linux kernel ? And sure , you have your opinions on each of these examples , but each of these examples have their own gotchas that would make sense to a significant portion of the population , especially the non-technical part ( s ) of humanity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think the "overreached" was about the contributor agreements, but rather the MySQL claim that the protocol for talking to the database (sending SQL queries) was GPL.
Thus non-GPL software was not allowed to use the database, and you should buy the commercial versions.To programmers and tech weenies such as ourselves, this statement seems absurd: An SQL stream is part of the product?
Surely you jest!
We can all point to many products that are database agnostic: there are perhaps a billion such products available for download on SourceForge that work with MySQL, PostgreSQL, and maybe Oracle and/or SqlServer.But, for a moment step out of nerd land and into the life of an executive.
When you say "database engine" he hears "mwah mah fua bua!
" And when you say "SQL Stream" he hears "Muff wa ha dia".
But when he sets up a product (such as a Customer Relationship Manager) it's a single product.
It might have a half-dozen distinct codebases (DBMS, SQL, PHP, HTML, Javascript, etc.
) but even though they are all distinct products in their own right, they are "one product" It's the "Augustus CRM!".
It's what he bought.So do these technical distinctions mean anything at all?
Not in the least.
And thus, the terms of the GPL would easily and happily apply to the entire product, no matter how technically distinct the pieces.I've often wondered what makes a product "separate".
It's a distinction that's forever being debated on the LKML.
Is VMWare in violation of Linux Kernel's GPL License?
What about ATI's binary driver?
What about somebody who sells hardware with a Linux kernel?And sure, you have your opinions on each of these examples, but each of these examples have their own gotchas that would make sense to a significant portion of the population, especially the non-technical part(s) of humanity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31238084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31239570</id>
	<title>Nosense.</title>
	<author>mindstrm</author>
	<datestamp>1266850380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I mean, the facts in the article are facts, but it's an opinion piece.</p><p>MySQL claimed they could copyright a "protocol" and that it was covered under the GPL.   That seem sketchy to me, given the GPL is a license designed to cover source code.  You could apply it to books.... but that would just mean large parts of the GPL were out of scope in the context of books.  (Your text would still be protected... but rules about distributing object could would have no relevance, I imagine.)</p><p>As to requiring contributors to assign rights to the project owner - that's a common practice of many projects, and has nothing to do with the GPL itself, and everything to do with ownership of a project.  The FSF requires this as well.   You are, of course, free to fork and do what you want on your own.. but if you wanted code in their official releases, you had to assign them the rights to it as well - this let them dual-license it as they saw fit.   I can't say I wouldn't do the same with my own projects, if it came down to it.</p><p>This really doesn't change the GPL much in any way I can see... the GPL has mostly been misunderstood, and will continue to be misunderstood, by many, forever.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean , the facts in the article are facts , but it 's an opinion piece.MySQL claimed they could copyright a " protocol " and that it was covered under the GPL .
That seem sketchy to me , given the GPL is a license designed to cover source code .
You could apply it to books.... but that would just mean large parts of the GPL were out of scope in the context of books .
( Your text would still be protected... but rules about distributing object could would have no relevance , I imagine .
) As to requiring contributors to assign rights to the project owner - that 's a common practice of many projects , and has nothing to do with the GPL itself , and everything to do with ownership of a project .
The FSF requires this as well .
You are , of course , free to fork and do what you want on your own.. but if you wanted code in their official releases , you had to assign them the rights to it as well - this let them dual-license it as they saw fit .
I ca n't say I would n't do the same with my own projects , if it came down to it.This really does n't change the GPL much in any way I can see... the GPL has mostly been misunderstood , and will continue to be misunderstood , by many , forever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean, the facts in the article are facts, but it's an opinion piece.MySQL claimed they could copyright a "protocol" and that it was covered under the GPL.
That seem sketchy to me, given the GPL is a license designed to cover source code.
You could apply it to books.... but that would just mean large parts of the GPL were out of scope in the context of books.
(Your text would still be protected... but rules about distributing object could would have no relevance, I imagine.
)As to requiring contributors to assign rights to the project owner - that's a common practice of many projects, and has nothing to do with the GPL itself, and everything to do with ownership of a project.
The FSF requires this as well.
You are, of course, free to fork and do what you want on your own.. but if you wanted code in their official releases, you had to assign them the rights to it as well - this let them dual-license it as they saw fit.
I can't say I wouldn't do the same with my own projects, if it came down to it.This really doesn't change the GPL much in any way I can see... the GPL has mostly been misunderstood, and will continue to be misunderstood, by many, forever.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31240786</id>
	<title>Crap Alert!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266860700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What IS the problem however, is the fact that the GPL is a complex legal document and some companies don't want to pay the fees necessary for a small battalion of lawyers to confirm its use on a server platform or within a product. Its polar opposite the BSD license however is far easier for anyone to interpret and has a lot of legal precedence behind it.</p><p>Seriously... are you this dense or is this something you do on the side?</p><p>Oh wait, you are pushing the BSD-its-safer-better-and-easier so youre starting to believe your own BS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What IS the problem however , is the fact that the GPL is a complex legal document and some companies do n't want to pay the fees necessary for a small battalion of lawyers to confirm its use on a server platform or within a product .
Its polar opposite the BSD license however is far easier for anyone to interpret and has a lot of legal precedence behind it.Seriously... are you this dense or is this something you do on the side ? Oh wait , you are pushing the BSD-its-safer-better-and-easier so youre starting to believe your own BS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What IS the problem however, is the fact that the GPL is a complex legal document and some companies don't want to pay the fees necessary for a small battalion of lawyers to confirm its use on a server platform or within a product.
Its polar opposite the BSD license however is far easier for anyone to interpret and has a lot of legal precedence behind it.Seriously... are you this dense or is this something you do on the side?Oh wait, you are pushing the BSD-its-safer-better-and-easier so youre starting to believe your own BS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31238150</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31249056</id>
	<title>Re:It's Monty again, having his cake and eating it</title>
	<author>x2A</author>
	<datestamp>1266958020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>"then it would be trivial for anyone to circumvent the GPL and it would loose all it's meaning"</i></p><p>Just like how the word 'lose' loses it's meaning when spelt 'loose'?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p><p>(sorry couldn't resist)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" then it would be trivial for anyone to circumvent the GPL and it would loose all it 's meaning " Just like how the word 'lose ' loses it 's meaning when spelt 'loose ' ?
; - ) ( sorry could n't resist )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"then it would be trivial for anyone to circumvent the GPL and it would loose all it's meaning"Just like how the word 'lose' loses it's meaning when spelt 'loose'?
;-)(sorry couldn't resist)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31242378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31238402</id>
	<title>Web hosting</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266843420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>MySQL is more scalable than SQLite and available from more shared web hosting providers than PostgreSQL. In many cases, a web hosting provider such as Go Daddy will make MySQL available to shared hosting customers but require an upgrade to a virtual dedicated server (and its memory-hogging Java-based administration tool) in order to use PostgreSQL.</htmltext>
<tokenext>MySQL is more scalable than SQLite and available from more shared web hosting providers than PostgreSQL .
In many cases , a web hosting provider such as Go Daddy will make MySQL available to shared hosting customers but require an upgrade to a virtual dedicated server ( and its memory-hogging Java-based administration tool ) in order to use PostgreSQL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MySQL is more scalable than SQLite and available from more shared web hosting providers than PostgreSQL.
In many cases, a web hosting provider such as Go Daddy will make MySQL available to shared hosting customers but require an upgrade to a virtual dedicated server (and its memory-hogging Java-based administration tool) in order to use PostgreSQL.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31238142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31242890</id>
	<title>Re:Licensing for not-Nerds</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1266929460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The GPL and the LGPL are written assuming a C linking model from the early '80s.  They are not really applicable for a lot of other languages.  Even something like Objective-C, in spite of being very C-like, has problems with them.  If you have an LGPL'd Objective-C library, you are required to release modifications to your clients, and allow them to link against an updated version.  Objective-C comes with a mechanism that allows you to add or replace methods on existing classes.  This means that you can ship the unmodified LGPL'd library along with a load of categories that actually extend it and replace its behaviour.  </p><p>
Are these modifications according to the LGPL?  You'd need a judge to decide.  They're using a well-defined mechanism supported by the language, and other frameworks don't require explicit permission in the license to use them (you won't get into legal trouble for replacing methods in Apple's frameworks, for example), but you've completely circumvented the intent of the LGPL.  </p><p>
Why is this possible?  Because the LGPL was written based on the traditional C model, where the only way of modifying a function is to change the source and recompile it.  They don't even take into account things like versioned linker symbols or linker preloads, which let you do the same sort of thing in C.  When you're talking even more dynamic languages, the licenses are entirely nonsensical.
</p><p>
[L]GPLv3 changes some of the terminology to attempt to be less C-specific, but doesn't change the concepts that it's expressing, so fails completely.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The GPL and the LGPL are written assuming a C linking model from the early '80s .
They are not really applicable for a lot of other languages .
Even something like Objective-C , in spite of being very C-like , has problems with them .
If you have an LGPL 'd Objective-C library , you are required to release modifications to your clients , and allow them to link against an updated version .
Objective-C comes with a mechanism that allows you to add or replace methods on existing classes .
This means that you can ship the unmodified LGPL 'd library along with a load of categories that actually extend it and replace its behaviour .
Are these modifications according to the LGPL ?
You 'd need a judge to decide .
They 're using a well-defined mechanism supported by the language , and other frameworks do n't require explicit permission in the license to use them ( you wo n't get into legal trouble for replacing methods in Apple 's frameworks , for example ) , but you 've completely circumvented the intent of the LGPL .
Why is this possible ?
Because the LGPL was written based on the traditional C model , where the only way of modifying a function is to change the source and recompile it .
They do n't even take into account things like versioned linker symbols or linker preloads , which let you do the same sort of thing in C. When you 're talking even more dynamic languages , the licenses are entirely nonsensical .
[ L ] GPLv3 changes some of the terminology to attempt to be less C-specific , but does n't change the concepts that it 's expressing , so fails completely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The GPL and the LGPL are written assuming a C linking model from the early '80s.
They are not really applicable for a lot of other languages.
Even something like Objective-C, in spite of being very C-like, has problems with them.
If you have an LGPL'd Objective-C library, you are required to release modifications to your clients, and allow them to link against an updated version.
Objective-C comes with a mechanism that allows you to add or replace methods on existing classes.
This means that you can ship the unmodified LGPL'd library along with a load of categories that actually extend it and replace its behaviour.
Are these modifications according to the LGPL?
You'd need a judge to decide.
They're using a well-defined mechanism supported by the language, and other frameworks don't require explicit permission in the license to use them (you won't get into legal trouble for replacing methods in Apple's frameworks, for example), but you've completely circumvented the intent of the LGPL.
Why is this possible?
Because the LGPL was written based on the traditional C model, where the only way of modifying a function is to change the source and recompile it.
They don't even take into account things like versioned linker symbols or linker preloads, which let you do the same sort of thing in C.  When you're talking even more dynamic languages, the licenses are entirely nonsensical.
[L]GPLv3 changes some of the terminology to attempt to be less C-specific, but doesn't change the concepts that it's expressing, so fails completely.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31241094</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31238754</id>
	<title>My what?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266845580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>GPL who?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>GPL who ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>GPL who?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31238204</id>
	<title>MySQL's Influence on the GPL?</title>
	<author>jupo</author>
	<datestamp>1266842220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well the GPL used to be much longer, but was somehow mysteriously truncated.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well the GPL used to be much longer , but was somehow mysteriously truncated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well the GPL used to be much longer, but was somehow mysteriously truncated.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31239556</id>
	<title>Switched all my customers to Postgres</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266850320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Postgres.. the REAL free alternative.  Mysql licensing has always been hairy at best, and the performance has not been up to enterprise levels.. unless you only do reads.  I've switched all my customers to Postgres about 3 years ago, and everybody is happy.. and this whole Oracle/Mysql debate is a non-issue.</p><p>When you SELL something.. and then you want to CONTROL it.. it's like being an Indian Giver..  There is nothing that Mysql can do that Postgres can't and there's plenty that Postgres can that Mysql can't.  So stop the whining, if you want to pay for Oracle, go for it.  If you don't want to pay, sqlite and postgres area available.</p><p>The only person Mysql has to blame is itself; ridiculously overreaching licensing made me dump it, and I encourage everybody else to do the same.  If you want to donate time to a database, sqlite and postgres.</p><p>I know you mysql'ers aren't use to hearing the truth; the sky is not falling but mysql usage is.  Live with it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Postgres.. the REAL free alternative .
Mysql licensing has always been hairy at best , and the performance has not been up to enterprise levels.. unless you only do reads .
I 've switched all my customers to Postgres about 3 years ago , and everybody is happy.. and this whole Oracle/Mysql debate is a non-issue.When you SELL something.. and then you want to CONTROL it.. it 's like being an Indian Giver.. There is nothing that Mysql can do that Postgres ca n't and there 's plenty that Postgres can that Mysql ca n't .
So stop the whining , if you want to pay for Oracle , go for it .
If you do n't want to pay , sqlite and postgres area available.The only person Mysql has to blame is itself ; ridiculously overreaching licensing made me dump it , and I encourage everybody else to do the same .
If you want to donate time to a database , sqlite and postgres.I know you mysql'ers are n't use to hearing the truth ; the sky is not falling but mysql usage is .
Live with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Postgres.. the REAL free alternative.
Mysql licensing has always been hairy at best, and the performance has not been up to enterprise levels.. unless you only do reads.
I've switched all my customers to Postgres about 3 years ago, and everybody is happy.. and this whole Oracle/Mysql debate is a non-issue.When you SELL something.. and then you want to CONTROL it.. it's like being an Indian Giver..  There is nothing that Mysql can do that Postgres can't and there's plenty that Postgres can that Mysql can't.
So stop the whining, if you want to pay for Oracle, go for it.
If you don't want to pay, sqlite and postgres area available.The only person Mysql has to blame is itself; ridiculously overreaching licensing made me dump it, and I encourage everybody else to do the same.
If you want to donate time to a database, sqlite and postgres.I know you mysql'ers aren't use to hearing the truth; the sky is not falling but mysql usage is.
Live with it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31240084</id>
	<title>Wealth is not investment</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1266853980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You, like many people, confuse wealth with investment.</p><p>The fact is, you do not need money to produce wealth.  Wealth is simply a thing that has been mined, thought up or created that betters the human condition. To have a Linux installation is to have wealth.  To have a free song is to have wealth.  It doesn't matter how you got it, it is only the matter that it exists.</p><p>What you are talking about is a means of creating wealth, and that's investment.</p><p>There's basically two kinds of investment systems.  Capitalism lets private individuals invest in order to get a profit from that investment, and socialism, where public taxes are invested in order to get a profit from that investment.  In both cases, there is some third party that has a fistful of cash and uses that cash to facilitate work, but at a price.</p><p>Indeed, despite my own bad karma rating and countless other left vs right flamewars, both basically are a matter of a class which uses its money to exploit somebody elses ability to produce, you guessed it, wealth.  What's even crazier is that functionally, at the very top level, both capitalism and socialism have the same fundamental working, because both rely on the power of the government to create and manage money.</p><p>In the case of capitalism, you have a central bank, which is essentially a government body even though its "independent" on paper.  What it does, is well, creates money out of thin air and then deposits it at banks. Banks then lend it to people, and guys at banks basically get rich charging interest on phantom money that the Federal reserve created.</p><p>In the case of socialism, you have a central bank, which is the government, and it creates money out of thin air and then uses it to reward those who build or produce goods it deems necessary.  The guys in the government basically get rich because they control where all the money is going, and they get free goodies too.  Like Brezhnev famously made himself a Hero of the Soviet Union for basically being Brezhnev.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You , like many people , confuse wealth with investment.The fact is , you do not need money to produce wealth .
Wealth is simply a thing that has been mined , thought up or created that betters the human condition .
To have a Linux installation is to have wealth .
To have a free song is to have wealth .
It does n't matter how you got it , it is only the matter that it exists.What you are talking about is a means of creating wealth , and that 's investment.There 's basically two kinds of investment systems .
Capitalism lets private individuals invest in order to get a profit from that investment , and socialism , where public taxes are invested in order to get a profit from that investment .
In both cases , there is some third party that has a fistful of cash and uses that cash to facilitate work , but at a price.Indeed , despite my own bad karma rating and countless other left vs right flamewars , both basically are a matter of a class which uses its money to exploit somebody elses ability to produce , you guessed it , wealth .
What 's even crazier is that functionally , at the very top level , both capitalism and socialism have the same fundamental working , because both rely on the power of the government to create and manage money.In the case of capitalism , you have a central bank , which is essentially a government body even though its " independent " on paper .
What it does , is well , creates money out of thin air and then deposits it at banks .
Banks then lend it to people , and guys at banks basically get rich charging interest on phantom money that the Federal reserve created.In the case of socialism , you have a central bank , which is the government , and it creates money out of thin air and then uses it to reward those who build or produce goods it deems necessary .
The guys in the government basically get rich because they control where all the money is going , and they get free goodies too .
Like Brezhnev famously made himself a Hero of the Soviet Union for basically being Brezhnev .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You, like many people, confuse wealth with investment.The fact is, you do not need money to produce wealth.
Wealth is simply a thing that has been mined, thought up or created that betters the human condition.
To have a Linux installation is to have wealth.
To have a free song is to have wealth.
It doesn't matter how you got it, it is only the matter that it exists.What you are talking about is a means of creating wealth, and that's investment.There's basically two kinds of investment systems.
Capitalism lets private individuals invest in order to get a profit from that investment, and socialism, where public taxes are invested in order to get a profit from that investment.
In both cases, there is some third party that has a fistful of cash and uses that cash to facilitate work, but at a price.Indeed, despite my own bad karma rating and countless other left vs right flamewars, both basically are a matter of a class which uses its money to exploit somebody elses ability to produce, you guessed it, wealth.
What's even crazier is that functionally, at the very top level, both capitalism and socialism have the same fundamental working, because both rely on the power of the government to create and manage money.In the case of capitalism, you have a central bank, which is essentially a government body even though its "independent" on paper.
What it does, is well, creates money out of thin air and then deposits it at banks.
Banks then lend it to people, and guys at banks basically get rich charging interest on phantom money that the Federal reserve created.In the case of socialism, you have a central bank, which is the government, and it creates money out of thin air and then uses it to reward those who build or produce goods it deems necessary.
The guys in the government basically get rich because they control where all the money is going, and they get free goodies too.
Like Brezhnev famously made himself a Hero of the Soviet Union for basically being Brezhnev.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31238734</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31238914</id>
	<title>Re:Basic economics</title>
	<author>Bruce Perens</author>
	<datestamp>1266846540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you want to understand the economics of Open Source, read <a href="http://perens.com/works/articles/Economic.html" title="perens.com">this</a> [perens.com]. It pokes some pretty big holes in your thesis.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you want to understand the economics of Open Source , read this [ perens.com ] .
It pokes some pretty big holes in your thesis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you want to understand the economics of Open Source, read this [perens.com].
It pokes some pretty big holes in your thesis.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31238734</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31249150</id>
	<title>Re:Not the only project to work this way.</title>
	<author>marcosdumay</author>
	<datestamp>1266958260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"Not that myself or my organization was opposed to licensing legally. However when you have a small, no fee, in house product being distributed within your organization and they are looking for 100$ US or more per instance for licensing fees, it rather makes it a hard pill to swallow."</p></div> </blockquote><p>If it was inhouse, you could have used the AGPL version without any problem.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Not that myself or my organization was opposed to licensing legally .
However when you have a small , no fee , in house product being distributed within your organization and they are looking for 100 $ US or more per instance for licensing fees , it rather makes it a hard pill to swallow .
" If it was inhouse , you could have used the AGPL version without any problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Not that myself or my organization was opposed to licensing legally.
However when you have a small, no fee, in house product being distributed within your organization and they are looking for 100$ US or more per instance for licensing fees, it rather makes it a hard pill to swallow.
" If it was inhouse, you could have used the AGPL version without any problem.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31238150</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31252278</id>
	<title>Re:It's amazing how they got away with it</title>
	<author>zuperduperman</author>
	<datestamp>1266927000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; how hard can it be to implement a clean-room version of a mysql client library and make it BSD-like licensed</p><p>The answer to this question and I suspect the reason it's not been really done (notwithstanding valiant efforts like drizzle):  it's impossible, because even as you write your client library the owner of the server code only has to tweak a single bit in their protocol to destroy compatibility with your library, and if you are destroying their business model with your client library you can bet they will do it over and over again.</p><p>The bottom line becomes - is there really any point in insisting on using a platform in defiance of / opposition to the wishes of the owner / controller of that platform?  For software like databases where you need an intimate working relationship with the vendor I think it's just pointless.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; how hard can it be to implement a clean-room version of a mysql client library and make it BSD-like licensedThe answer to this question and I suspect the reason it 's not been really done ( notwithstanding valiant efforts like drizzle ) : it 's impossible , because even as you write your client library the owner of the server code only has to tweak a single bit in their protocol to destroy compatibility with your library , and if you are destroying their business model with your client library you can bet they will do it over and over again.The bottom line becomes - is there really any point in insisting on using a platform in defiance of / opposition to the wishes of the owner / controller of that platform ?
For software like databases where you need an intimate working relationship with the vendor I think it 's just pointless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; how hard can it be to implement a clean-room version of a mysql client library and make it BSD-like licensedThe answer to this question and I suspect the reason it's not been really done (notwithstanding valiant efforts like drizzle):  it's impossible, because even as you write your client library the owner of the server code only has to tweak a single bit in their protocol to destroy compatibility with your library, and if you are destroying their business model with your client library you can bet they will do it over and over again.The bottom line becomes - is there really any point in insisting on using a platform in defiance of / opposition to the wishes of the owner / controller of that platform?
For software like databases where you need an intimate working relationship with the vendor I think it's just pointless.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31240788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31253746</id>
	<title>Re:Not the only project to work this way.</title>
	<author>SETIGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1266934020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Not that myself or my organization was opposed to licensing legally.  However when you have a small, no fee, in house product being distributed within your organization and they are looking for 100$ US or more per instance for licensing fees, it rather makes it a hard pill to swallow.</p></div><p>If it's only used internally why would you need a license?  GPL only applies if you intend to distribute an application.  Maybe your organization would have saved a lot of money if they had spent a couple hundred buck to talk with a lawyer for an hour.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not that myself or my organization was opposed to licensing legally .
However when you have a small , no fee , in house product being distributed within your organization and they are looking for 100 $ US or more per instance for licensing fees , it rather makes it a hard pill to swallow.If it 's only used internally why would you need a license ?
GPL only applies if you intend to distribute an application .
Maybe your organization would have saved a lot of money if they had spent a couple hundred buck to talk with a lawyer for an hour .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not that myself or my organization was opposed to licensing legally.
However when you have a small, no fee, in house product being distributed within your organization and they are looking for 100$ US or more per instance for licensing fees, it rather makes it a hard pill to swallow.If it's only used internally why would you need a license?
GPL only applies if you intend to distribute an application.
Maybe your organization would have saved a lot of money if they had spent a couple hundred buck to talk with a lawyer for an hour.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31238150</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31242162</id>
	<title>Re:GPL FUD, read again about distribution.</title>
	<author>shreddertomas</author>
	<datestamp>1266919680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here you obviously have not read the GPL, or are spreading FUD. GPL clearly states that you only have to re-distribute sources with your products, i.e. to the users. If you have an in house you only have to distribute your sources in house, something that should not be a problem in most organizations. So unless you need to keep your programs secret from your own organization you don't have to pay anything.<br>The GPL does not say that you have to distribute your sources to the world.</p><p>This is a common misunderstanding, or way of spreading FUD about GPL.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here you obviously have not read the GPL , or are spreading FUD .
GPL clearly states that you only have to re-distribute sources with your products , i.e .
to the users .
If you have an in house you only have to distribute your sources in house , something that should not be a problem in most organizations .
So unless you need to keep your programs secret from your own organization you do n't have to pay anything.The GPL does not say that you have to distribute your sources to the world.This is a common misunderstanding , or way of spreading FUD about GPL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here you obviously have not read the GPL, or are spreading FUD.
GPL clearly states that you only have to re-distribute sources with your products, i.e.
to the users.
If you have an in house you only have to distribute your sources in house, something that should not be a problem in most organizations.
So unless you need to keep your programs secret from your own organization you don't have to pay anything.The GPL does not say that you have to distribute your sources to the world.This is a common misunderstanding, or way of spreading FUD about GPL.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31238150</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31238392</id>
	<title>Certainly not off topic</title>
	<author>einhverfr</author>
	<datestamp>1266843420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sure, MySQL sucks.  MySQL sucks technically.  The licensing sucks.  The whole thing stinks.</p><p>However, if you read the story (a lot to ask of Slashdot readers, I know), you would realize that this was about folks discussing the negative influence of MySQL on the whole FOSS industry.  Moreover it is about Oracle's purchase possibly ending that era.</p><p>Oracle may be a very menacing, evil corporation, but they might have done us all a favor now.</p><p>(Honestly, PostgreSQL is a much better RDBMS all around.  So is Firebird.  Heck SQLite is better for many applications than MySQL.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , MySQL sucks .
MySQL sucks technically .
The licensing sucks .
The whole thing stinks.However , if you read the story ( a lot to ask of Slashdot readers , I know ) , you would realize that this was about folks discussing the negative influence of MySQL on the whole FOSS industry .
Moreover it is about Oracle 's purchase possibly ending that era.Oracle may be a very menacing , evil corporation , but they might have done us all a favor now .
( Honestly , PostgreSQL is a much better RDBMS all around .
So is Firebird .
Heck SQLite is better for many applications than MySQL .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure, MySQL sucks.
MySQL sucks technically.
The licensing sucks.
The whole thing stinks.However, if you read the story (a lot to ask of Slashdot readers, I know), you would realize that this was about folks discussing the negative influence of MySQL on the whole FOSS industry.
Moreover it is about Oracle's purchase possibly ending that era.Oracle may be a very menacing, evil corporation, but they might have done us all a favor now.
(Honestly, PostgreSQL is a much better RDBMS all around.
So is Firebird.
Heck SQLite is better for many applications than MySQL.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31238142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31238450</id>
	<title>Re:Not the only project to work this way.</title>
	<author>einhverfr</author>
	<datestamp>1266843660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I tell people, look for multi-vendor projects.  This avoids a lot of this crap.  PostgreSQL, Linux, Apache, etc. are all great projects because the authors have cultivated commercial involvement from a variety of companies.  The other side are the single-vendor ones like MySQL, SugarCRM, etc. which have dual-license models.  They are the companies to avoid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I tell people , look for multi-vendor projects .
This avoids a lot of this crap .
PostgreSQL , Linux , Apache , etc .
are all great projects because the authors have cultivated commercial involvement from a variety of companies .
The other side are the single-vendor ones like MySQL , SugarCRM , etc .
which have dual-license models .
They are the companies to avoid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I tell people, look for multi-vendor projects.
This avoids a lot of this crap.
PostgreSQL, Linux, Apache, etc.
are all great projects because the authors have cultivated commercial involvement from a variety of companies.
The other side are the single-vendor ones like MySQL, SugarCRM, etc.
which have dual-license models.
They are the companies to avoid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31238150</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31238314</id>
	<title>Re:If MySQL over-reached with the GPL, tell the FS</title>
	<author>nedlohs</author>
	<datestamp>1266843000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since the contributor agreement had nothing to do with the over-reaching, that's pretty much irrelevant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since the contributor agreement had nothing to do with the over-reaching , that 's pretty much irrelevant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since the contributor agreement had nothing to do with the over-reaching, that's pretty much irrelevant.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31238024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31238150</id>
	<title>Not the only project to work this way.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266841980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>MySQL caused a bit of a stir where I worked for the same reasons mentioned in the article.   It is not always about doing the legwork, as anyone can pretty much take a few hours of research to find out licenses, variants in code and so forth.</p><p>What IS the problem however, is the fact that the GPL is a complex legal document and some companies don't want to pay the fees necessary for a small battalion of lawyers to confirm its use on a server platform or within a product.   Its polar opposite the BSD license however is far easier for anyone to interpret and has a lot of legal precedence behind it.</p><p>The MySQL dual licensing issue reminds me of another project I encountered.  iText PDF (http://www.itextpdf.com) is a Java open-source license that was traditionally released under the Mozilla Public License 1.1.</p><p>Oddly enough, just as their tutorials disappeared when the author of the library published a book.  To which is used exclusively when asking for help in the forums, they also changed the license to the AGPL.</p><p>This seemed to be a way to force companies into buying their dual license.  Apparently a lot of people used their product on a back-end servers to generate PDF invoices and so forth.  By forcing the license change it meant that their changes to the code would have to be released and the viral nature of the AGPL forced the hands of many formerly legal products.</p><p>Fortunately, their MPL licensed version is only a few months older then their new code and oddly works with their Tutorial files they have hidden away in an old archive on Source forge.</p><p>Not that myself or my organization was opposed to licensing legally.  However when you have a small, no fee, in house product being distributed within your organization and they are looking for 100$ US or more per instance for licensing fees, it rather makes it a hard pill to swallow.</p><p>MySQL had the same problem some of their fees seemed to range in the 300$ US per instance depending on the type of licensing involved and overhead of the company you used to get them.   Some individuals at our organization recalls getting Oracle licenses for that price!</p><p>In a way, are these open source products or are they simply using the moniker as a way to attract people and force them into costly solutions?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>MySQL caused a bit of a stir where I worked for the same reasons mentioned in the article .
It is not always about doing the legwork , as anyone can pretty much take a few hours of research to find out licenses , variants in code and so forth.What IS the problem however , is the fact that the GPL is a complex legal document and some companies do n't want to pay the fees necessary for a small battalion of lawyers to confirm its use on a server platform or within a product .
Its polar opposite the BSD license however is far easier for anyone to interpret and has a lot of legal precedence behind it.The MySQL dual licensing issue reminds me of another project I encountered .
iText PDF ( http : //www.itextpdf.com ) is a Java open-source license that was traditionally released under the Mozilla Public License 1.1.Oddly enough , just as their tutorials disappeared when the author of the library published a book .
To which is used exclusively when asking for help in the forums , they also changed the license to the AGPL.This seemed to be a way to force companies into buying their dual license .
Apparently a lot of people used their product on a back-end servers to generate PDF invoices and so forth .
By forcing the license change it meant that their changes to the code would have to be released and the viral nature of the AGPL forced the hands of many formerly legal products.Fortunately , their MPL licensed version is only a few months older then their new code and oddly works with their Tutorial files they have hidden away in an old archive on Source forge.Not that myself or my organization was opposed to licensing legally .
However when you have a small , no fee , in house product being distributed within your organization and they are looking for 100 $ US or more per instance for licensing fees , it rather makes it a hard pill to swallow.MySQL had the same problem some of their fees seemed to range in the 300 $ US per instance depending on the type of licensing involved and overhead of the company you used to get them .
Some individuals at our organization recalls getting Oracle licenses for that price ! In a way , are these open source products or are they simply using the moniker as a way to attract people and force them into costly solutions ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MySQL caused a bit of a stir where I worked for the same reasons mentioned in the article.
It is not always about doing the legwork, as anyone can pretty much take a few hours of research to find out licenses, variants in code and so forth.What IS the problem however, is the fact that the GPL is a complex legal document and some companies don't want to pay the fees necessary for a small battalion of lawyers to confirm its use on a server platform or within a product.
Its polar opposite the BSD license however is far easier for anyone to interpret and has a lot of legal precedence behind it.The MySQL dual licensing issue reminds me of another project I encountered.
iText PDF (http://www.itextpdf.com) is a Java open-source license that was traditionally released under the Mozilla Public License 1.1.Oddly enough, just as their tutorials disappeared when the author of the library published a book.
To which is used exclusively when asking for help in the forums, they also changed the license to the AGPL.This seemed to be a way to force companies into buying their dual license.
Apparently a lot of people used their product on a back-end servers to generate PDF invoices and so forth.
By forcing the license change it meant that their changes to the code would have to be released and the viral nature of the AGPL forced the hands of many formerly legal products.Fortunately, their MPL licensed version is only a few months older then their new code and oddly works with their Tutorial files they have hidden away in an old archive on Source forge.Not that myself or my organization was opposed to licensing legally.
However when you have a small, no fee, in house product being distributed within your organization and they are looking for 100$ US or more per instance for licensing fees, it rather makes it a hard pill to swallow.MySQL had the same problem some of their fees seemed to range in the 300$ US per instance depending on the type of licensing involved and overhead of the company you used to get them.
Some individuals at our organization recalls getting Oracle licenses for that price!In a way, are these open source products or are they simply using the moniker as a way to attract people and force them into costly solutions?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31238058</id>
	<title>How do you profit from "free"? You start changing!</title>
	<author>LostCluster</author>
	<datestamp>1266841380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People loved when CDDB offered to identify CD's so when ripping you could not have to type everything in for your music app. Many people donated time to this "project"... but once it was done, suddenly developers started to have to pay Gracenote for the data, and "free" music programs went away for paid-for-somehow models like Windows Media Player, iTunes, and the such.</p><p>It seems like bait and switch is a viable business model these days. Start off as a free project taking free help, then turn around and exercise your copyright burning your former free help but having plenty of money for paid help to take their place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People loved when CDDB offered to identify CD 's so when ripping you could not have to type everything in for your music app .
Many people donated time to this " project " ... but once it was done , suddenly developers started to have to pay Gracenote for the data , and " free " music programs went away for paid-for-somehow models like Windows Media Player , iTunes , and the such.It seems like bait and switch is a viable business model these days .
Start off as a free project taking free help , then turn around and exercise your copyright burning your former free help but having plenty of money for paid help to take their place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People loved when CDDB offered to identify CD's so when ripping you could not have to type everything in for your music app.
Many people donated time to this "project"... but once it was done, suddenly developers started to have to pay Gracenote for the data, and "free" music programs went away for paid-for-somehow models like Windows Media Player, iTunes, and the such.It seems like bait and switch is a viable business model these days.
Start off as a free project taking free help, then turn around and exercise your copyright burning your former free help but having plenty of money for paid help to take their place.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31238418</id>
	<title>Stick a fork in it. It's done.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266843480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know every little detail of what's happened and frankly I don't care. If people want it to live on and Oracle don't live up to their agreement, and assuming the code is readable, the community can fork it and move on. If that's no longer legally possible, as far as I'm concerned it's not GPL code. Regardless, my guess is that MySQL will decline but that other projects like Postgress will fill the niche for small free databases. As for the effect on the GPL, things cannot be undone. Once a license is challenged or abused in some way the only possible response is to adapt it to take that into account.</p><p>I'm MUCH more worried about Java, OpenOffice, VirtualBox. I'm also concerned about zfs and MySQL, but not as much. Roughly in that order.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know every little detail of what 's happened and frankly I do n't care .
If people want it to live on and Oracle do n't live up to their agreement , and assuming the code is readable , the community can fork it and move on .
If that 's no longer legally possible , as far as I 'm concerned it 's not GPL code .
Regardless , my guess is that MySQL will decline but that other projects like Postgress will fill the niche for small free databases .
As for the effect on the GPL , things can not be undone .
Once a license is challenged or abused in some way the only possible response is to adapt it to take that into account.I 'm MUCH more worried about Java , OpenOffice , VirtualBox .
I 'm also concerned about zfs and MySQL , but not as much .
Roughly in that order .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know every little detail of what's happened and frankly I don't care.
If people want it to live on and Oracle don't live up to their agreement, and assuming the code is readable, the community can fork it and move on.
If that's no longer legally possible, as far as I'm concerned it's not GPL code.
Regardless, my guess is that MySQL will decline but that other projects like Postgress will fill the niche for small free databases.
As for the effect on the GPL, things cannot be undone.
Once a license is challenged or abused in some way the only possible response is to adapt it to take that into account.I'm MUCH more worried about Java, OpenOffice, VirtualBox.
I'm also concerned about zfs and MySQL, but not as much.
Roughly in that order.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31242040</id>
	<title>Re:Not the only project to work this way.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266917700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, the GPL is fairly complex.  It is only simple when you give away all your source code.  When you want to keep parts of the product proprietary, then it becomes more complicated.  Does this part of your product constitute a derived work?  Does that?  Do we have to release this or that piece?  How many of our tools used to build the system need to be released?  Now, there are folks that say you should release everything, there are often business reasons for people to keep parts private, and that has been encouraged by the community.  However, where to draw the line can be hard to draw at times and requires a very careful reading of the GPL, in consultation with a good IP lawyer.</p><p>All of these questions come up when a company has both IP to protect, and an obligation under the GPL to produce code.  To call this ambiguous document simple is laughable.</p><p>Warner</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , the GPL is fairly complex .
It is only simple when you give away all your source code .
When you want to keep parts of the product proprietary , then it becomes more complicated .
Does this part of your product constitute a derived work ?
Does that ?
Do we have to release this or that piece ?
How many of our tools used to build the system need to be released ?
Now , there are folks that say you should release everything , there are often business reasons for people to keep parts private , and that has been encouraged by the community .
However , where to draw the line can be hard to draw at times and requires a very careful reading of the GPL , in consultation with a good IP lawyer.All of these questions come up when a company has both IP to protect , and an obligation under the GPL to produce code .
To call this ambiguous document simple is laughable.Warner</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, the GPL is fairly complex.
It is only simple when you give away all your source code.
When you want to keep parts of the product proprietary, then it becomes more complicated.
Does this part of your product constitute a derived work?
Does that?
Do we have to release this or that piece?
How many of our tools used to build the system need to be released?
Now, there are folks that say you should release everything, there are often business reasons for people to keep parts private, and that has been encouraged by the community.
However, where to draw the line can be hard to draw at times and requires a very careful reading of the GPL, in consultation with a good IP lawyer.All of these questions come up when a company has both IP to protect, and an obligation under the GPL to produce code.
To call this ambiguous document simple is laughable.Warner</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31239472</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31238084</id>
	<title>Re:If MySQL over-reached with the GPL, tell the FS</title>
	<author>teg</author>
	<datestamp>1266841560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
I don't think the "overreached" was about the contributor agreements, but rather the MySQL claim that the protocol for talking to the database (sending SQL queries) was GPL. Thus non-GPL software was not allowed to use the database, and you should buy the commercial versions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think the " overreached " was about the contributor agreements , but rather the MySQL claim that the protocol for talking to the database ( sending SQL queries ) was GPL .
Thus non-GPL software was not allowed to use the database , and you should buy the commercial versions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
I don't think the "overreached" was about the contributor agreements, but rather the MySQL claim that the protocol for talking to the database (sending SQL queries) was GPL.
Thus non-GPL software was not allowed to use the database, and you should buy the commercial versions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31238024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31238024</id>
	<title>If MySQL over-reached with the GPL, tell the FSF!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266841140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The FSF also requires contributor agreements, and I would argue that the practical reason for this is the freedom to choose otherwise incompatible licenses in the future (such as migrating from GPLv2 -- not GPLv2-or-at-your-option-any-later-version -- to GPLv3).  One common reason that the FSF says they want contributor agreements is to make it easier for them to pursue enforcement actions, but that should be available if they hold any copy rights in the work.  They don't need to own all copy rights, but they require that as a condition of distributing the code anyway.</p><p>Setting aside all the arguments over whether it's a good idea to require contributor agreements, given that the FSF requires them, it's really hard for me to see how it constitutes any kind of "over-reach".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The FSF also requires contributor agreements , and I would argue that the practical reason for this is the freedom to choose otherwise incompatible licenses in the future ( such as migrating from GPLv2 -- not GPLv2-or-at-your-option-any-later-version -- to GPLv3 ) .
One common reason that the FSF says they want contributor agreements is to make it easier for them to pursue enforcement actions , but that should be available if they hold any copy rights in the work .
They do n't need to own all copy rights , but they require that as a condition of distributing the code anyway.Setting aside all the arguments over whether it 's a good idea to require contributor agreements , given that the FSF requires them , it 's really hard for me to see how it constitutes any kind of " over-reach " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The FSF also requires contributor agreements, and I would argue that the practical reason for this is the freedom to choose otherwise incompatible licenses in the future (such as migrating from GPLv2 -- not GPLv2-or-at-your-option-any-later-version -- to GPLv3).
One common reason that the FSF says they want contributor agreements is to make it easier for them to pursue enforcement actions, but that should be available if they hold any copy rights in the work.
They don't need to own all copy rights, but they require that as a condition of distributing the code anyway.Setting aside all the arguments over whether it's a good idea to require contributor agreements, given that the FSF requires them, it's really hard for me to see how it constitutes any kind of "over-reach".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31240580</id>
	<title>Re:Basic economics</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1266858540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Companies don't make money by giving anything away, except in a very restricted set of circumstances where the gift is of no particular value and induces customers to spend actual money</p></div><p>That's more or less true, except that it also works when the gift IS of value, but not of <em>enough</em> value to solve a problem worth spending money on. The remaining piece for the value to be adequate can be service, or it can be targeted development. MySQL was worth $0 to many (most?) potential customers as a lump of code or even a compiled, packaged set of binaries and their requisites, but MySQL with a support agreement was worth more. And of course, MySQL plus peace of mind (a guarantee not to be dragged into court for using MySQL without permission of the copyright holder, however wrong his views on the license and the law might be, and probably are) was worth money to many customers. But clearly that's not the only model which works.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>A for-profit company, particularly a publicly-traded company, is always going to extract every last penny from its customers in exchange for the least value they will settle for. That's how capitalism works.</p></div><p>The dictionary: Love it, or shut up. That's how <em>corporatism</em> works, not capitalism. In fact, corporatism damages everything good about capitalism.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Capitalism works thus: you pay workers the least you can get away with in exchange for the most effort you can get out of them, to produce the least valuable products you can sell at the highest prices possible. Period.</p></div><p>No, again, that model only works in certain instances, many of which are illegal (like pump-and-dump schemes.)</p><p><div class="quote"><p>If you have something sufficiently valuable and you have a price, someone will eventually pay it. MySQL AB thought it could be an exception to the rule, and as a result, we are all a lot poorer.</p></div><p>Are we? My website uses MySQL, and it's still working. It's working so well that spammers willing to solve reCAPTCHAs by one means or another are leaving spam on it, hopefully to be mitigated when I get back home and can reasonably add some more spam protection. I don't <em>feel</em> any poorer...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Companies do n't make money by giving anything away , except in a very restricted set of circumstances where the gift is of no particular value and induces customers to spend actual moneyThat 's more or less true , except that it also works when the gift IS of value , but not of enough value to solve a problem worth spending money on .
The remaining piece for the value to be adequate can be service , or it can be targeted development .
MySQL was worth $ 0 to many ( most ?
) potential customers as a lump of code or even a compiled , packaged set of binaries and their requisites , but MySQL with a support agreement was worth more .
And of course , MySQL plus peace of mind ( a guarantee not to be dragged into court for using MySQL without permission of the copyright holder , however wrong his views on the license and the law might be , and probably are ) was worth money to many customers .
But clearly that 's not the only model which works.A for-profit company , particularly a publicly-traded company , is always going to extract every last penny from its customers in exchange for the least value they will settle for .
That 's how capitalism works.The dictionary : Love it , or shut up .
That 's how corporatism works , not capitalism .
In fact , corporatism damages everything good about capitalism.Capitalism works thus : you pay workers the least you can get away with in exchange for the most effort you can get out of them , to produce the least valuable products you can sell at the highest prices possible .
Period.No , again , that model only works in certain instances , many of which are illegal ( like pump-and-dump schemes .
) If you have something sufficiently valuable and you have a price , someone will eventually pay it .
MySQL AB thought it could be an exception to the rule , and as a result , we are all a lot poorer.Are we ?
My website uses MySQL , and it 's still working .
It 's working so well that spammers willing to solve reCAPTCHAs by one means or another are leaving spam on it , hopefully to be mitigated when I get back home and can reasonably add some more spam protection .
I do n't feel any poorer.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Companies don't make money by giving anything away, except in a very restricted set of circumstances where the gift is of no particular value and induces customers to spend actual moneyThat's more or less true, except that it also works when the gift IS of value, but not of enough value to solve a problem worth spending money on.
The remaining piece for the value to be adequate can be service, or it can be targeted development.
MySQL was worth $0 to many (most?
) potential customers as a lump of code or even a compiled, packaged set of binaries and their requisites, but MySQL with a support agreement was worth more.
And of course, MySQL plus peace of mind (a guarantee not to be dragged into court for using MySQL without permission of the copyright holder, however wrong his views on the license and the law might be, and probably are) was worth money to many customers.
But clearly that's not the only model which works.A for-profit company, particularly a publicly-traded company, is always going to extract every last penny from its customers in exchange for the least value they will settle for.
That's how capitalism works.The dictionary: Love it, or shut up.
That's how corporatism works, not capitalism.
In fact, corporatism damages everything good about capitalism.Capitalism works thus: you pay workers the least you can get away with in exchange for the most effort you can get out of them, to produce the least valuable products you can sell at the highest prices possible.
Period.No, again, that model only works in certain instances, many of which are illegal (like pump-and-dump schemes.
)If you have something sufficiently valuable and you have a price, someone will eventually pay it.
MySQL AB thought it could be an exception to the rule, and as a result, we are all a lot poorer.Are we?
My website uses MySQL, and it's still working.
It's working so well that spammers willing to solve reCAPTCHAs by one means or another are leaving spam on it, hopefully to be mitigated when I get back home and can reasonably add some more spam protection.
I don't feel any poorer...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31238734</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31243022</id>
	<title>Re:Not the only project to work this way.</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1266930600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The GPL is incredibly complex compared to the BSD licenses, and even to things like the Apache 1 license.  It's not particularly complex compared to things like the CDDL, APSL, or MPL, but it is a lot more ambiguous if you are programming in anything other than C (have fun counting the parts of the GPL that assume a C-like compile-link-execute model).  Part of the perceived complexity of the GPL is the fact that it is several pages of legalese.  Part of the perceived complexity is that it needs to be twice as long to actually express the ideas that it tries to.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The GPL is incredibly complex compared to the BSD licenses , and even to things like the Apache 1 license .
It 's not particularly complex compared to things like the CDDL , APSL , or MPL , but it is a lot more ambiguous if you are programming in anything other than C ( have fun counting the parts of the GPL that assume a C-like compile-link-execute model ) .
Part of the perceived complexity of the GPL is the fact that it is several pages of legalese .
Part of the perceived complexity is that it needs to be twice as long to actually express the ideas that it tries to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The GPL is incredibly complex compared to the BSD licenses, and even to things like the Apache 1 license.
It's not particularly complex compared to things like the CDDL, APSL, or MPL, but it is a lot more ambiguous if you are programming in anything other than C (have fun counting the parts of the GPL that assume a C-like compile-link-execute model).
Part of the perceived complexity of the GPL is the fact that it is several pages of legalese.
Part of the perceived complexity is that it needs to be twice as long to actually express the ideas that it tries to.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31239472</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31238340</id>
	<title>I think the FSF overreaches</title>
	<author>einhverfr</author>
	<datestamp>1266843120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I personally think the FSF does overreach in this area.  Certainly RMS's rhetoric about what the GPL requires overreaches.  If we believe RMS, the GPL reaches well beyond areas traditionally covered by copyright law and into areas like interoperability, which I think is just plain wrong.  Indeed, I think linking itself is in no way sufficient to argue derivation.</p><p>I think more level heads, like some of the more moderate lawyers at the SFLC, and more level-headed engineers like Linus are closer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I personally think the FSF does overreach in this area .
Certainly RMS 's rhetoric about what the GPL requires overreaches .
If we believe RMS , the GPL reaches well beyond areas traditionally covered by copyright law and into areas like interoperability , which I think is just plain wrong .
Indeed , I think linking itself is in no way sufficient to argue derivation.I think more level heads , like some of the more moderate lawyers at the SFLC , and more level-headed engineers like Linus are closer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I personally think the FSF does overreach in this area.
Certainly RMS's rhetoric about what the GPL requires overreaches.
If we believe RMS, the GPL reaches well beyond areas traditionally covered by copyright law and into areas like interoperability, which I think is just plain wrong.
Indeed, I think linking itself is in no way sufficient to argue derivation.I think more level heads, like some of the more moderate lawyers at the SFLC, and more level-headed engineers like Linus are closer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31238024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31239804</id>
	<title>Not the same: Data vs. Code</title>
	<author>kbahey</author>
	<datestamp>1266852000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are mixing up things, causing confusion, most probably unintentionally.</p><p>As unfortunate the CDDB/Gracenotes was, it is very different from MySQL.</p><p>First, MySQL is code, not data. The GPL is a good license for free software, but should not be used to non-code stuff. It was not meant to be used for things that are not code.</p><p>Second MySQL is GPL, the CDDB data is, well, there is a dispute about it. The GPL protects a given version that it will remain free forever. The copyright holder, if they so chose, can license newer versions under something else, but the old version will remain GPL.</p><p>So, Oracle can choose to not license future versions of MySQL under the GPL, but the existing versions will remain GPL. If enough people care for it, and rally behind it, it can be a viable fork of the product by a community team and/or sponsored by other companies. MySQL is being used by large companies and web sites all over the place. This includes Google, Yahoo, Facebook, Digg, Slashdot,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...etc. It is too widespread to be just killed off<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are mixing up things , causing confusion , most probably unintentionally.As unfortunate the CDDB/Gracenotes was , it is very different from MySQL.First , MySQL is code , not data .
The GPL is a good license for free software , but should not be used to non-code stuff .
It was not meant to be used for things that are not code.Second MySQL is GPL , the CDDB data is , well , there is a dispute about it .
The GPL protects a given version that it will remain free forever .
The copyright holder , if they so chose , can license newer versions under something else , but the old version will remain GPL.So , Oracle can choose to not license future versions of MySQL under the GPL , but the existing versions will remain GPL .
If enough people care for it , and rally behind it , it can be a viable fork of the product by a community team and/or sponsored by other companies .
MySQL is being used by large companies and web sites all over the place .
This includes Google , Yahoo , Facebook , Digg , Slashdot , ...etc .
It is too widespread to be just killed off .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are mixing up things, causing confusion, most probably unintentionally.As unfortunate the CDDB/Gracenotes was, it is very different from MySQL.First, MySQL is code, not data.
The GPL is a good license for free software, but should not be used to non-code stuff.
It was not meant to be used for things that are not code.Second MySQL is GPL, the CDDB data is, well, there is a dispute about it.
The GPL protects a given version that it will remain free forever.
The copyright holder, if they so chose, can license newer versions under something else, but the old version will remain GPL.So, Oracle can choose to not license future versions of MySQL under the GPL, but the existing versions will remain GPL.
If enough people care for it, and rally behind it, it can be a viable fork of the product by a community team and/or sponsored by other companies.
MySQL is being used by large companies and web sites all over the place.
This includes Google, Yahoo, Facebook, Digg, Slashdot, ...etc.
It is too widespread to be just killed off ...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31238058</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31238652</id>
	<title>Re:MySQL sucks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266844860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Modded as flamebait because the modder couldn't come up with a rebuttal that wouldn't get him laughed off of Slashdot.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Modded as flamebait because the modder could n't come up with a rebuttal that would n't get him laughed off of Slashdot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Modded as flamebait because the modder couldn't come up with a rebuttal that wouldn't get him laughed off of Slashdot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31238142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31238110</id>
	<title>Re:If MySQL over-reached with the GPL, tell the FS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266841680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
I think that the point of the article is that MYSQL overreached in claiming that the MYSQL protocol was subject to the GPL. Protocols cannot be copyrighted and therefore cannot fall under the GPL.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that the point of the article is that MYSQL overreached in claiming that the MYSQL protocol was subject to the GPL .
Protocols can not be copyrighted and therefore can not fall under the GPL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
I think that the point of the article is that MYSQL overreached in claiming that the MYSQL protocol was subject to the GPL.
Protocols cannot be copyrighted and therefore cannot fall under the GPL.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31238024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31238274</id>
	<title>Re:MySQL sucks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266842640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>most of the slashdot crowd will never achieve junior DBA-level knowledge.</htmltext>
<tokenext>most of the slashdot crowd will never achieve junior DBA-level knowledge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>most of the slashdot crowd will never achieve junior DBA-level knowledge.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31238142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31238018</id>
	<title>Well, I'd just like to say...</title>
	<author>uassholes</author>
	<datestamp>1266841140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hi!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hi !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hi!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31238406</id>
	<title>Re:Not the only project to work this way.</title>
	<author>happy\_place</author>
	<datestamp>1266843480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>of course most people don't pay anything. they wait to be slapped on the hand because the issue is complicated and there's just enough leeway to claim ignorance. unless the GPL nazi's come knocking they coast...</htmltext>
<tokenext>of course most people do n't pay anything .
they wait to be slapped on the hand because the issue is complicated and there 's just enough leeway to claim ignorance .
unless the GPL nazi 's come knocking they coast.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>of course most people don't pay anything.
they wait to be slapped on the hand because the issue is complicated and there's just enough leeway to claim ignorance.
unless the GPL nazi's come knocking they coast...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31238150</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31238022</id>
	<title>My sql's influence?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266841140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Go fuck yourself GPUs!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Go fuck yourself GPUs !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Go fuck yourself GPUs!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31238544</id>
	<title>It's Monty again, having his cake and eating it.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266844200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Brian works for Monty. Monty made something around USD$130M selling MySQL to Sun, who then sold themselves to Oracle. Monty, instead of buying a yacht and taking a vacation, wants to stay in the MySQL business. The problem is that he sold his rights. If someone was "over-reaching" with the GPL at MySQL, Monty was one of the three people behind that. Now, Monty wants to both take back the licensing scheme that made him a very rich man, and keep the money.</p><p>
Give it up, Monty. Work on something else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Brian works for Monty .
Monty made something around USD $ 130M selling MySQL to Sun , who then sold themselves to Oracle .
Monty , instead of buying a yacht and taking a vacation , wants to stay in the MySQL business .
The problem is that he sold his rights .
If someone was " over-reaching " with the GPL at MySQL , Monty was one of the three people behind that .
Now , Monty wants to both take back the licensing scheme that made him a very rich man , and keep the money .
Give it up , Monty .
Work on something else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Brian works for Monty.
Monty made something around USD$130M selling MySQL to Sun, who then sold themselves to Oracle.
Monty, instead of buying a yacht and taking a vacation, wants to stay in the MySQL business.
The problem is that he sold his rights.
If someone was "over-reaching" with the GPL at MySQL, Monty was one of the three people behind that.
Now, Monty wants to both take back the licensing scheme that made him a very rich man, and keep the money.
Give it up, Monty.
Work on something else.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31238734</id>
	<title>Basic economics</title>
	<author>Angst Badger</author>
	<datestamp>1266845460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Companies don't make money by giving anything away, except in a very restricted set of circumstances where the gift is of no particular value and induces customers to spend actual money, or when there are substantial money-based strings attached. Why is this so hard for the FOSS world to grasp? A for-profit company, particularly a publicly-traded company, is <i>always</i> going to extract every last penny from its customers in exchange for the least value they will settle for. That's how capitalism <i>works</i>. Altruism is a pointless expense from the capitalist point-of-view, and companies that engage in much of it are going to lose their markets to companies that do not because those competitors are using their resources more efficiently.</p><p>I know this runs contrary to a lot of the wishful Adam Smith's invisible hand rainbows-and-unicorns thinking that is popular with a fairly large faction around here, but pixies don't make the flowers grow, either, and bitching about it isn't going to change anything. Capitalism works thus: you pay workers the least you can get away with in exchange for the most effort you can get out of them, to produce the least valuable products you can sell at the highest prices possible. Period. It does occasionally contribute to the common good, but because that contribution is itself an inefficiency in the system, there is a very strong incentive for all companies to reduce the amount of public good they do in order to cut costs and maximize profits.</p><p>Despite the window-dressing efforts of ESR and the "Open Source" faction, the underlying mechanism of FOSS (or whatever you want to call it) is altruistic charity. We make useful things <i>and give them away</i>. There's some money to be made on support, customization, dual-licensing, and systems integration, but it's negligible in terms of the oceans of cash flowing through the software industry. If a FOSS project significantly menaces any of the profit-streams of a large software company like Oracle or Microsoft, they are in a position to spend more money fighting it in an hour than you earn in a lifetime. Rarely, a FOSS project makes a significant dent in those profit streams: Apache, Firefox, Linux, and MySQL being the most successful.</p><p>If your overriding consideration is offering the best possible software package to the public as a gesture of personal generosity or some other personal commitment, and you happen to be both lucky and very, very good at what you do, you might well make a substantial dent. In some smaller markets, you might even become the dominant player. But that has to be your <i>overriding</i> consideration. If, as with MySQL AB, you are willing to sell your ownership in the software, you are back in the world of capitalism and no matter what bullshit assurances you receive from the army of salesmen and lawyers who will suddenly appear to offer them, all of the usual rules of the market apply, and you may rest assured that <i>you</i> are in no position to change how those rules work. You sold the goods, and from the point of view of the purchaser, <i>you no longer exist</i>.</p><p>If we are, as FOSS developers, committed to serving the public good, there's a lot we can do. If we're in it primarily for personal profit, 99\% of us will get nowhere, and the remaining 1\% will be bought out one by one. If you have something sufficiently valuable and you have a price, someone will eventually pay it. MySQL AB thought it could be an exception to the rule, and as a result, we are all a lot poorer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Companies do n't make money by giving anything away , except in a very restricted set of circumstances where the gift is of no particular value and induces customers to spend actual money , or when there are substantial money-based strings attached .
Why is this so hard for the FOSS world to grasp ?
A for-profit company , particularly a publicly-traded company , is always going to extract every last penny from its customers in exchange for the least value they will settle for .
That 's how capitalism works .
Altruism is a pointless expense from the capitalist point-of-view , and companies that engage in much of it are going to lose their markets to companies that do not because those competitors are using their resources more efficiently.I know this runs contrary to a lot of the wishful Adam Smith 's invisible hand rainbows-and-unicorns thinking that is popular with a fairly large faction around here , but pixies do n't make the flowers grow , either , and bitching about it is n't going to change anything .
Capitalism works thus : you pay workers the least you can get away with in exchange for the most effort you can get out of them , to produce the least valuable products you can sell at the highest prices possible .
Period. It does occasionally contribute to the common good , but because that contribution is itself an inefficiency in the system , there is a very strong incentive for all companies to reduce the amount of public good they do in order to cut costs and maximize profits.Despite the window-dressing efforts of ESR and the " Open Source " faction , the underlying mechanism of FOSS ( or whatever you want to call it ) is altruistic charity .
We make useful things and give them away .
There 's some money to be made on support , customization , dual-licensing , and systems integration , but it 's negligible in terms of the oceans of cash flowing through the software industry .
If a FOSS project significantly menaces any of the profit-streams of a large software company like Oracle or Microsoft , they are in a position to spend more money fighting it in an hour than you earn in a lifetime .
Rarely , a FOSS project makes a significant dent in those profit streams : Apache , Firefox , Linux , and MySQL being the most successful.If your overriding consideration is offering the best possible software package to the public as a gesture of personal generosity or some other personal commitment , and you happen to be both lucky and very , very good at what you do , you might well make a substantial dent .
In some smaller markets , you might even become the dominant player .
But that has to be your overriding consideration .
If , as with MySQL AB , you are willing to sell your ownership in the software , you are back in the world of capitalism and no matter what bullshit assurances you receive from the army of salesmen and lawyers who will suddenly appear to offer them , all of the usual rules of the market apply , and you may rest assured that you are in no position to change how those rules work .
You sold the goods , and from the point of view of the purchaser , you no longer exist.If we are , as FOSS developers , committed to serving the public good , there 's a lot we can do .
If we 're in it primarily for personal profit , 99 \ % of us will get nowhere , and the remaining 1 \ % will be bought out one by one .
If you have something sufficiently valuable and you have a price , someone will eventually pay it .
MySQL AB thought it could be an exception to the rule , and as a result , we are all a lot poorer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Companies don't make money by giving anything away, except in a very restricted set of circumstances where the gift is of no particular value and induces customers to spend actual money, or when there are substantial money-based strings attached.
Why is this so hard for the FOSS world to grasp?
A for-profit company, particularly a publicly-traded company, is always going to extract every last penny from its customers in exchange for the least value they will settle for.
That's how capitalism works.
Altruism is a pointless expense from the capitalist point-of-view, and companies that engage in much of it are going to lose their markets to companies that do not because those competitors are using their resources more efficiently.I know this runs contrary to a lot of the wishful Adam Smith's invisible hand rainbows-and-unicorns thinking that is popular with a fairly large faction around here, but pixies don't make the flowers grow, either, and bitching about it isn't going to change anything.
Capitalism works thus: you pay workers the least you can get away with in exchange for the most effort you can get out of them, to produce the least valuable products you can sell at the highest prices possible.
Period. It does occasionally contribute to the common good, but because that contribution is itself an inefficiency in the system, there is a very strong incentive for all companies to reduce the amount of public good they do in order to cut costs and maximize profits.Despite the window-dressing efforts of ESR and the "Open Source" faction, the underlying mechanism of FOSS (or whatever you want to call it) is altruistic charity.
We make useful things and give them away.
There's some money to be made on support, customization, dual-licensing, and systems integration, but it's negligible in terms of the oceans of cash flowing through the software industry.
If a FOSS project significantly menaces any of the profit-streams of a large software company like Oracle or Microsoft, they are in a position to spend more money fighting it in an hour than you earn in a lifetime.
Rarely, a FOSS project makes a significant dent in those profit streams: Apache, Firefox, Linux, and MySQL being the most successful.If your overriding consideration is offering the best possible software package to the public as a gesture of personal generosity or some other personal commitment, and you happen to be both lucky and very, very good at what you do, you might well make a substantial dent.
In some smaller markets, you might even become the dominant player.
But that has to be your overriding consideration.
If, as with MySQL AB, you are willing to sell your ownership in the software, you are back in the world of capitalism and no matter what bullshit assurances you receive from the army of salesmen and lawyers who will suddenly appear to offer them, all of the usual rules of the market apply, and you may rest assured that you are in no position to change how those rules work.
You sold the goods, and from the point of view of the purchaser, you no longer exist.If we are, as FOSS developers, committed to serving the public good, there's a lot we can do.
If we're in it primarily for personal profit, 99\% of us will get nowhere, and the remaining 1\% will be bought out one by one.
If you have something sufficiently valuable and you have a price, someone will eventually pay it.
MySQL AB thought it could be an exception to the rule, and as a result, we are all a lot poorer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31238142</id>
	<title>MySQL sucks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266841920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why do people keep raving on about it? It's a known slab of shit by even the most junior of DBAs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do people keep raving on about it ?
It 's a known slab of shit by even the most junior of DBAs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do people keep raving on about it?
It's a known slab of shit by even the most junior of DBAs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_2240204_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31247362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31241094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31238084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31238024
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_2240204_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31238274
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31238142
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_2240204_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31238652
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31238142
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_2240204_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31238314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31238024
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_2240204_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31238340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31238024
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_2240204_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31238450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31238150
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_2240204_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31240084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31238734
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_2240204_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31243022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31239472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31238150
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_2240204_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31239970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31238402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31238142
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_2240204_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31240786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31238150
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_2240204_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31242890
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31241094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31238084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31238024
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_2240204_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31249806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31238544
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_2240204_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31239080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31238544
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_2240204_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31241296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31238058
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_2240204_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31240580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31238734
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_2240204_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31238688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31238150
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_2240204_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31243286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31241094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31238084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31238024
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_2240204_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31249150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31238150
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_2240204_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31238392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31238142
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_2240204_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31238110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31238024
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_2240204_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31238406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31238150
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_2240204_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31242040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31239472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31238150
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_2240204_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31238914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31238734
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_2240204_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31253746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31238150
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_2240204_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31263368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31242162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31238150
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_2240204_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31248468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31238024
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_2240204_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31249056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31242378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31238544
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_2240204_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31242102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31238024
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_2240204_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31252278
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31240788
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_2240204_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31239804
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31238058
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_2240204.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31240788
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31252278
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_2240204.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31238024
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31248468
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31238084
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31241094
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31247362
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31242890
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31243286
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31238314
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31242102
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31238340
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31238110
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_2240204.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31238058
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31241296
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31239804
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_2240204.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31238734
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31240084
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31240580
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31238914
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_2240204.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31238150
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31240786
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31239472
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31243022
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31242040
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31238406
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31238688
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31249150
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31242162
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31263368
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31238450
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31253746
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_2240204.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31238142
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31238402
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31239970
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31238392
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31238652
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31238274
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_2240204.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31238544
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31239080
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31249806
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31242378
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31249056
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_2240204.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31238418
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_2240204.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2240204.31238204
</commentlist>
</conversation>
