<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_01_1311206</id>
	<title>Should Enterprise IT Give Back To Open Source?</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1243863000000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.infoworld.com/" rel="nofollow">snydeq</a> writes <i>"InfoWorld reports on the <a href="http://infoworld.com/d/open-source/fight-over-open-source-leeches-399?page=0,0">fight over open source 'leeches'</a> &mdash; companies that use open source technology but don't give back to the open source community. While some view such organizations as a <a href="http://michaelscharf.blogspot.com/2009/04/eclipse-freeloader-award.html">tragedy of the commons</a>, others view the notion of 'freeloaders' as a relic of open source's Wild West era, when coding was a higher calling and free software a religion. To be sure, increased adoption by mainstream enterprises has played a hand in <a href="http://www.infoworld.com/t/tech-industry-analysis/open-source-dying-or-maybe-it-isnt-248">changing the terms of this debate</a>. Yet, as the biggest consumer of open source software, enterprise IT still gives almost nothing back to the community, critics contend, calling into question the long-term effect corporate culture will have on the evolution of open source &mdash; and the long-term effect open source will have on rewiring companies toward collaboration."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>snydeq writes " InfoWorld reports on the fight over open source 'leeches '    companies that use open source technology but do n't give back to the open source community .
While some view such organizations as a tragedy of the commons , others view the notion of 'freeloaders ' as a relic of open source 's Wild West era , when coding was a higher calling and free software a religion .
To be sure , increased adoption by mainstream enterprises has played a hand in changing the terms of this debate .
Yet , as the biggest consumer of open source software , enterprise IT still gives almost nothing back to the community , critics contend , calling into question the long-term effect corporate culture will have on the evolution of open source    and the long-term effect open source will have on rewiring companies toward collaboration .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>snydeq writes "InfoWorld reports on the fight over open source 'leeches' — companies that use open source technology but don't give back to the open source community.
While some view such organizations as a tragedy of the commons, others view the notion of 'freeloaders' as a relic of open source's Wild West era, when coding was a higher calling and free software a religion.
To be sure, increased adoption by mainstream enterprises has played a hand in changing the terms of this debate.
Yet, as the biggest consumer of open source software, enterprise IT still gives almost nothing back to the community, critics contend, calling into question the long-term effect corporate culture will have on the evolution of open source — and the long-term effect open source will have on rewiring companies toward collaboration.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167319</id>
	<title>Treat them like lepers ....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243867920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you have large enterprise users not contributing back then they should just be treated like lepers, end of story.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you have large enterprise users not contributing back then they should just be treated like lepers , end of story .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you have large enterprise users not contributing back then they should just be treated like lepers, end of story.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167569</id>
	<title>Transparent aluminum?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243869120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>..oh wait, Scotty was in Engineering, not IT.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>..oh wait , Scotty was in Engineering , not IT .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>..oh wait, Scotty was in Engineering, not IT.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167091</id>
	<title>No, they should not</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243866960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The idea that users should give back to the community is absurd. If the "community" was at all concerned about receiving some kind of recompense, surely they would have charged the users for the software.</p><p>But Free Software is about freedom. Not only the freedom to give your source code away, but the freedom to modify and adapt software as needed. There is no concept of a user returning source code to the community except as a contributor (which, again, is a freely undertaken venture). The only time someone is required to "give back" to the community is when they seek to propagate their changes. Since the idea is to make sure everyone is able to use and modify the software as they need, it is necessary to require the new source changes.</p><p>So if I don't steal your car, but only borrow it for a day and return it washed and waxed with the gas tank full, what is the point of claiming damages? That is sheer greed. It is the antithesis of what the Free Software Movement is all about.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The idea that users should give back to the community is absurd .
If the " community " was at all concerned about receiving some kind of recompense , surely they would have charged the users for the software.But Free Software is about freedom .
Not only the freedom to give your source code away , but the freedom to modify and adapt software as needed .
There is no concept of a user returning source code to the community except as a contributor ( which , again , is a freely undertaken venture ) .
The only time someone is required to " give back " to the community is when they seek to propagate their changes .
Since the idea is to make sure everyone is able to use and modify the software as they need , it is necessary to require the new source changes.So if I do n't steal your car , but only borrow it for a day and return it washed and waxed with the gas tank full , what is the point of claiming damages ?
That is sheer greed .
It is the antithesis of what the Free Software Movement is all about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The idea that users should give back to the community is absurd.
If the "community" was at all concerned about receiving some kind of recompense, surely they would have charged the users for the software.But Free Software is about freedom.
Not only the freedom to give your source code away, but the freedom to modify and adapt software as needed.
There is no concept of a user returning source code to the community except as a contributor (which, again, is a freely undertaken venture).
The only time someone is required to "give back" to the community is when they seek to propagate their changes.
Since the idea is to make sure everyone is able to use and modify the software as they need, it is necessary to require the new source changes.So if I don't steal your car, but only borrow it for a day and return it washed and waxed with the gas tank full, what is the point of claiming damages?
That is sheer greed.
It is the antithesis of what the Free Software Movement is all about.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167555</id>
	<title>Re:Of course they *should*...</title>
	<author>Jurily</author>
	<datestamp>1243869060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Are we suggesting making contributions manditory in order to get free software?</p></div><p>That's not free as in speech, and not free as in beer. And don't get me started on measuring contributions.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are we suggesting making contributions manditory in order to get free software ? That 's not free as in speech , and not free as in beer .
And do n't get me started on measuring contributions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are we suggesting making contributions manditory in order to get free software?That's not free as in speech, and not free as in beer.
And don't get me started on measuring contributions.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167075</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28175785</id>
	<title>GPL vs. BSD and GPL's requirement</title>
	<author>DrYak</author>
	<datestamp>1243860900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Are we suggesting making contributions manditory in order to get free software?</p></div><p>Read again the GPL. It's *already* mandatory.<br>For any modification that you make on GPL code that you distribute, it is mandatory that you contribute. Either send a patch upstream, or publish the modified source locally or sent them along the distributed code.<br>That's the main point of flamewar between BSD and GPL.</p><p>So to take again the article's example :<br>- Cisco's product in the Linksys line rely on Linux (GPL lisence).<br>If Cisco doesn't publish the modification they made on the Linux fitted into the Linksys, they aren't just unfair leeches because they don't contribute.<br>They are *violating* the GPL's requirement and have to either comply, or abandon distribution of Linux.</p><p>Thankfully, Cisco happens to publish the source code of opensource parts of Linksys' fimware.<br>But other don't. Hence websites such as <a href="http://gpl-violations.org/" title="gpl-violations.org">GPL Violations</a> [gpl-violations.org].</p><p>The article's second example :<br>- Amazong relying on Eclipse (EPL lisence, a weaker copyleft license)<br>Well, um... sorry guys. But that's the whole point of strong vs weak copyleft license (GPL vs BSD, or in this case GPL vs. EPL).<br>Every user of GPL software is allowed to do pretty much what he/she wants, as long as he/she transmits the *same* freedom to the next user in the distribution chain.<br>Every user of BSD software is allowed to do pretty much what he/she wants. End of story, no conditions attached.</p><p>If they are unhappy with the situation, they should have tought about it before and they should have moved to a strong copyleft license like in the first place.</p><p>For the rest :<br>The article didn't mention, but there are also some whine boys complaining about some companies deploying GPL software and not doing much.<br>Well, that's life, that's how the GPL works. Nobody is required to pay the developers, otherwise it wouldn't be free software. And probably the software wouldn't be as popular if it wasn't freely accessible and customizable in the first place.<br>Don't despair, though :<br>On the other hand, such "free loading" companies will some day some custom job done. And then<br>- either they will pay the original developers for the new features they need. (and thus the developer will get something)<br>- or they will develop the new feature in-house, and by GPL's magic *will* be required to contribute or publish this modifications, if they want to distribute the new modified version.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are we suggesting making contributions manditory in order to get free software ? Read again the GPL .
It 's * already * mandatory.For any modification that you make on GPL code that you distribute , it is mandatory that you contribute .
Either send a patch upstream , or publish the modified source locally or sent them along the distributed code.That 's the main point of flamewar between BSD and GPL.So to take again the article 's example : - Cisco 's product in the Linksys line rely on Linux ( GPL lisence ) .If Cisco does n't publish the modification they made on the Linux fitted into the Linksys , they are n't just unfair leeches because they do n't contribute.They are * violating * the GPL 's requirement and have to either comply , or abandon distribution of Linux.Thankfully , Cisco happens to publish the source code of opensource parts of Linksys ' fimware.But other do n't .
Hence websites such as GPL Violations [ gpl-violations.org ] .The article 's second example : - Amazong relying on Eclipse ( EPL lisence , a weaker copyleft license ) Well , um... sorry guys .
But that 's the whole point of strong vs weak copyleft license ( GPL vs BSD , or in this case GPL vs. EPL ) .Every user of GPL software is allowed to do pretty much what he/she wants , as long as he/she transmits the * same * freedom to the next user in the distribution chain.Every user of BSD software is allowed to do pretty much what he/she wants .
End of story , no conditions attached.If they are unhappy with the situation , they should have tought about it before and they should have moved to a strong copyleft license like in the first place.For the rest : The article did n't mention , but there are also some whine boys complaining about some companies deploying GPL software and not doing much.Well , that 's life , that 's how the GPL works .
Nobody is required to pay the developers , otherwise it would n't be free software .
And probably the software would n't be as popular if it was n't freely accessible and customizable in the first place.Do n't despair , though : On the other hand , such " free loading " companies will some day some custom job done .
And then- either they will pay the original developers for the new features they need .
( and thus the developer will get something ) - or they will develop the new feature in-house , and by GPL 's magic * will * be required to contribute or publish this modifications , if they want to distribute the new modified version .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are we suggesting making contributions manditory in order to get free software?Read again the GPL.
It's *already* mandatory.For any modification that you make on GPL code that you distribute, it is mandatory that you contribute.
Either send a patch upstream, or publish the modified source locally or sent them along the distributed code.That's the main point of flamewar between BSD and GPL.So to take again the article's example :- Cisco's product in the Linksys line rely on Linux (GPL lisence).If Cisco doesn't publish the modification they made on the Linux fitted into the Linksys, they aren't just unfair leeches because they don't contribute.They are *violating* the GPL's requirement and have to either comply, or abandon distribution of Linux.Thankfully, Cisco happens to publish the source code of opensource parts of Linksys' fimware.But other don't.
Hence websites such as GPL Violations [gpl-violations.org].The article's second example :- Amazong relying on Eclipse (EPL lisence, a weaker copyleft license)Well, um... sorry guys.
But that's the whole point of strong vs weak copyleft license (GPL vs BSD, or in this case GPL vs. EPL).Every user of GPL software is allowed to do pretty much what he/she wants, as long as he/she transmits the *same* freedom to the next user in the distribution chain.Every user of BSD software is allowed to do pretty much what he/she wants.
End of story, no conditions attached.If they are unhappy with the situation, they should have tought about it before and they should have moved to a strong copyleft license like in the first place.For the rest :The article didn't mention, but there are also some whine boys complaining about some companies deploying GPL software and not doing much.Well, that's life, that's how the GPL works.
Nobody is required to pay the developers, otherwise it wouldn't be free software.
And probably the software wouldn't be as popular if it wasn't freely accessible and customizable in the first place.Don't despair, though :On the other hand, such "free loading" companies will some day some custom job done.
And then- either they will pay the original developers for the new features they need.
(and thus the developer will get something)- or they will develop the new feature in-house, and by GPL's magic *will* be required to contribute or publish this modifications, if they want to distribute the new modified version.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167075</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28168093</id>
	<title>Re:No, they should not.</title>
	<author>Maximum Prophet</author>
	<datestamp>1243871220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Open source software isn't about receiving, it is about giving.</p></div><p>Nope.
<br> <br>
The free software movement was started because one programmer couldn't get the code to fix a bug in a printer driver.  It's about Freedom.    If I write software, you can't take that software and keep someone else from doing what they want with it.  <b>You</b> can do what <b>you</b> want with the software, including publishing it, but you can't attach your own restrictions on that software.
<br> <br>
Contributing to Free Software is just gravy that makes it all taste good.  It's not necessary for any one individual to contribute to make the system work.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Open source software is n't about receiving , it is about giving.Nope .
The free software movement was started because one programmer could n't get the code to fix a bug in a printer driver .
It 's about Freedom .
If I write software , you ca n't take that software and keep someone else from doing what they want with it .
You can do what you want with the software , including publishing it , but you ca n't attach your own restrictions on that software .
Contributing to Free Software is just gravy that makes it all taste good .
It 's not necessary for any one individual to contribute to make the system work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Open source software isn't about receiving, it is about giving.Nope.
The free software movement was started because one programmer couldn't get the code to fix a bug in a printer driver.
It's about Freedom.
If I write software, you can't take that software and keep someone else from doing what they want with it.
You can do what you want with the software, including publishing it, but you can't attach your own restrictions on that software.
Contributing to Free Software is just gravy that makes it all taste good.
It's not necessary for any one individual to contribute to make the system work.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167179</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28169749</id>
	<title>Re:Just To Be Clear...</title>
	<author>HiThere</author>
	<datestamp>1243878360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is a community, not a borg.  You get lots of different ideas in a community.  Some aren't so hot.</p><p>If you read the threads under this article, you'll notice that most people are dismissing this argument.  You might also notice that the published article was in InfoWorld.  Hardly a spokesman for ANY segment of the FOSS community.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a community , not a borg .
You get lots of different ideas in a community .
Some are n't so hot.If you read the threads under this article , you 'll notice that most people are dismissing this argument .
You might also notice that the published article was in InfoWorld .
Hardly a spokesman for ANY segment of the FOSS community .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a community, not a borg.
You get lots of different ideas in a community.
Some aren't so hot.If you read the threads under this article, you'll notice that most people are dismissing this argument.
You might also notice that the published article was in InfoWorld.
Hardly a spokesman for ANY segment of the FOSS community.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167405</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28168367</id>
	<title>Re:Just To Be Clear...</title>
	<author>klubar</author>
	<datestamp>1243872420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You can't have it both ways--complain about low adoption rate for FOSS and then complain about not contributing for free software.  The point of free software is that it is free.<br> <br>This is really a tragedy of the commons--why should I contribute to free software (or even buy paid-for software) when I can get it for free?  Why should a company dedicate expensive IT resources into giving back to the free community when the ROI (return on investment) is low to zero?  Any enhancements made to the software are probably going to be kept internal--and the effort and for contributing to most projects is just too high.  In addition, some (but not all) projects are loath to accept contributions outside a small group of "approved" developers.<br> <br>Microsoft, Oracle, Apple, etc. have a much simpler model for getting companies to contribute to the cost to the software--they simply charge for it.  If the company doesn't feel that they are getting enough value from the software they are being asked to purchase, the company has the option of doing without or buying an alternative.  The pricing and market model may work better in this case.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You ca n't have it both ways--complain about low adoption rate for FOSS and then complain about not contributing for free software .
The point of free software is that it is free .
This is really a tragedy of the commons--why should I contribute to free software ( or even buy paid-for software ) when I can get it for free ?
Why should a company dedicate expensive IT resources into giving back to the free community when the ROI ( return on investment ) is low to zero ?
Any enhancements made to the software are probably going to be kept internal--and the effort and for contributing to most projects is just too high .
In addition , some ( but not all ) projects are loath to accept contributions outside a small group of " approved " developers .
Microsoft , Oracle , Apple , etc .
have a much simpler model for getting companies to contribute to the cost to the software--they simply charge for it .
If the company does n't feel that they are getting enough value from the software they are being asked to purchase , the company has the option of doing without or buying an alternative .
The pricing and market model may work better in this case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can't have it both ways--complain about low adoption rate for FOSS and then complain about not contributing for free software.
The point of free software is that it is free.
This is really a tragedy of the commons--why should I contribute to free software (or even buy paid-for software) when I can get it for free?
Why should a company dedicate expensive IT resources into giving back to the free community when the ROI (return on investment) is low to zero?
Any enhancements made to the software are probably going to be kept internal--and the effort and for contributing to most projects is just too high.
In addition, some (but not all) projects are loath to accept contributions outside a small group of "approved" developers.
Microsoft, Oracle, Apple, etc.
have a much simpler model for getting companies to contribute to the cost to the software--they simply charge for it.
If the company doesn't feel that they are getting enough value from the software they are being asked to purchase, the company has the option of doing without or buying an alternative.
The pricing and market model may work better in this case.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167087</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167963</id>
	<title>Re:Of course they *should*...</title>
	<author>onescomplement</author>
	<datestamp>1243870680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Any contribution is good.  I encourage small IT shops to do things like correct or illuminate documentation, contribute to relevant forums, and contribute any tools you've created or extended.  You don't have to be a code hero to contribute to OSS.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Any contribution is good .
I encourage small IT shops to do things like correct or illuminate documentation , contribute to relevant forums , and contribute any tools you 've created or extended .
You do n't have to be a code hero to contribute to OSS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any contribution is good.
I encourage small IT shops to do things like correct or illuminate documentation, contribute to relevant forums, and contribute any tools you've created or extended.
You don't have to be a code hero to contribute to OSS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167075</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167631</id>
	<title>There ought to be a law...</title>
	<author>Maximum Prophet</author>
	<datestamp>1243869300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Many organizations use open source, but actively have policies that prevent giving code back.   Systems to prevent this may backfire, because if an organization *had* to give back, they might just think it's safer to go with closed source.  True or not, many lawyers prefer a draconian closed source license that has been paid for over an open license that hasn't.  The closed source license is perceived to have been more tested by the courts. Since closed licenses are all different, while GPL, Apache, BSD, and CC are published, well researched, and not overreaching, I don't know why they would reach that conclusion.  Some companies have exclusive contracts that have only been seen by a handful of attorneys, while the major open source license have been seen and debated by the World.
<br> <br>
Most companies have an overinflated view of the value of their contributions, (although they only paid their programmers industry standard wages)  so they put up internal barriers that make it difficult or impossible to give back.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Many organizations use open source , but actively have policies that prevent giving code back .
Systems to prevent this may backfire , because if an organization * had * to give back , they might just think it 's safer to go with closed source .
True or not , many lawyers prefer a draconian closed source license that has been paid for over an open license that has n't .
The closed source license is perceived to have been more tested by the courts .
Since closed licenses are all different , while GPL , Apache , BSD , and CC are published , well researched , and not overreaching , I do n't know why they would reach that conclusion .
Some companies have exclusive contracts that have only been seen by a handful of attorneys , while the major open source license have been seen and debated by the World .
Most companies have an overinflated view of the value of their contributions , ( although they only paid their programmers industry standard wages ) so they put up internal barriers that make it difficult or impossible to give back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many organizations use open source, but actively have policies that prevent giving code back.
Systems to prevent this may backfire, because if an organization *had* to give back, they might just think it's safer to go with closed source.
True or not, many lawyers prefer a draconian closed source license that has been paid for over an open license that hasn't.
The closed source license is perceived to have been more tested by the courts.
Since closed licenses are all different, while GPL, Apache, BSD, and CC are published, well researched, and not overreaching, I don't know why they would reach that conclusion.
Some companies have exclusive contracts that have only been seen by a handful of attorneys, while the major open source license have been seen and debated by the World.
Most companies have an overinflated view of the value of their contributions, (although they only paid their programmers industry standard wages)  so they put up internal barriers that make it difficult or impossible to give back.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167989</id>
	<title>Re:Call me an idiot but...</title>
	<author>Maximum Prophet</author>
	<datestamp>1243870860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, that's the correct response.  If everyone did that, free software would get a great boost.
<br> <br>
Did you emphasize the money and time savings by opening the source?  Were there unmet needs of the software, or was it "Good Enough?"  If to management the software was "Good Enough", and offered them a competitive advantage, then in their eyes they were doing the right thing.   I can be a hard argument to make.  "If we open the code, we lose our competitive advantage, but an unknown number of people might contribute an unknown amount of code."   Management would rather hire an outside firm that promises to write N lines of code for M dollars, even thought we technical types know the outsourcer is lying through their teeth.  (Plus, there's no way of knowing what N lines of code will really do to the software.)
<br> <br>
Management doesn't like unknowns.  At all.  They dislike unknowns so much, they would rather have guesses and lies in the place of unknowns.  Many people have climbed hight on the corporate ladder simply by plugging in guesses and lies into a spreadsheet or Gant chart.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , that 's the correct response .
If everyone did that , free software would get a great boost .
Did you emphasize the money and time savings by opening the source ?
Were there unmet needs of the software , or was it " Good Enough ?
" If to management the software was " Good Enough " , and offered them a competitive advantage , then in their eyes they were doing the right thing .
I can be a hard argument to make .
" If we open the code , we lose our competitive advantage , but an unknown number of people might contribute an unknown amount of code .
" Management would rather hire an outside firm that promises to write N lines of code for M dollars , even thought we technical types know the outsourcer is lying through their teeth .
( Plus , there 's no way of knowing what N lines of code will really do to the software .
) Management does n't like unknowns .
At all .
They dislike unknowns so much , they would rather have guesses and lies in the place of unknowns .
Many people have climbed hight on the corporate ladder simply by plugging in guesses and lies into a spreadsheet or Gant chart .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, that's the correct response.
If everyone did that, free software would get a great boost.
Did you emphasize the money and time savings by opening the source?
Were there unmet needs of the software, or was it "Good Enough?
"  If to management the software was "Good Enough", and offered them a competitive advantage, then in their eyes they were doing the right thing.
I can be a hard argument to make.
"If we open the code, we lose our competitive advantage, but an unknown number of people might contribute an unknown amount of code.
"   Management would rather hire an outside firm that promises to write N lines of code for M dollars, even thought we technical types know the outsourcer is lying through their teeth.
(Plus, there's no way of knowing what N lines of code will really do to the software.
)
 
Management doesn't like unknowns.
At all.
They dislike unknowns so much, they would rather have guesses and lies in the place of unknowns.
Many people have climbed hight on the corporate ladder simply by plugging in guesses and lies into a spreadsheet or Gant chart.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167173</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28171207</id>
	<title>Re:Speaking as an Enterprise user</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243885140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You should understand that most people don't connect their morality to something like code. Engaging them on that level is like arguing against sex before mariage. These ideas you value so high are just as artificially connected to morality. Asking to give away code for free is, for most people, like asking to give away a lunch for free. Sure most people see it as a good act, but most people (me included) don't see it as their obligation or duty to do so.</p><p>Do you? Do you think bad of yourself if you don't give money to help solving real issues like lack of food, education or health care? But you do think bad of someone who doesn't give away stuff for free to solve the highly artificial problems of free software?</p><p>If you want to be taken serious you have to come up with real reasons for contributing. If you can't do that you really should question your own point of view.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You should understand that most people do n't connect their morality to something like code .
Engaging them on that level is like arguing against sex before mariage .
These ideas you value so high are just as artificially connected to morality .
Asking to give away code for free is , for most people , like asking to give away a lunch for free .
Sure most people see it as a good act , but most people ( me included ) do n't see it as their obligation or duty to do so.Do you ?
Do you think bad of yourself if you do n't give money to help solving real issues like lack of food , education or health care ?
But you do think bad of someone who does n't give away stuff for free to solve the highly artificial problems of free software ? If you want to be taken serious you have to come up with real reasons for contributing .
If you ca n't do that you really should question your own point of view .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You should understand that most people don't connect their morality to something like code.
Engaging them on that level is like arguing against sex before mariage.
These ideas you value so high are just as artificially connected to morality.
Asking to give away code for free is, for most people, like asking to give away a lunch for free.
Sure most people see it as a good act, but most people (me included) don't see it as their obligation or duty to do so.Do you?
Do you think bad of yourself if you don't give money to help solving real issues like lack of food, education or health care?
But you do think bad of someone who doesn't give away stuff for free to solve the highly artificial problems of free software?If you want to be taken serious you have to come up with real reasons for contributing.
If you can't do that you really should question your own point of view.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167225</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28171309</id>
	<title>Re:But some software is more free than others</title>
	<author>Danathar</author>
	<datestamp>1243885500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It sounds hypocritical because you ignore the the fact that the GPL is not using "Free" in the context you are talking about.</p><p>And stop generalizing. "Everybody" who firmly believe in the GPL is not even remotely true. If you had READ the GPL you'd understand that it's PERFECTLY reasonable under the GPL to contribute and not give back so long as it's kept internal to your own company organization which blows a crater sized hole in your statement that "everyone who firmly believes in the GPL says: everyone who uses open source software must give back, because it was free."</p><p>Do your research, check your facts then write.</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It sounds hypocritical because you ignore the the fact that the GPL is not using " Free " in the context you are talking about.And stop generalizing .
" Everybody " who firmly believe in the GPL is not even remotely true .
If you had READ the GPL you 'd understand that it 's PERFECTLY reasonable under the GPL to contribute and not give back so long as it 's kept internal to your own company organization which blows a crater sized hole in your statement that " everyone who firmly believes in the GPL says : everyone who uses open source software must give back , because it was free .
" Do your research , check your facts then write .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>It sounds hypocritical because you ignore the the fact that the GPL is not using "Free" in the context you are talking about.And stop generalizing.
"Everybody" who firmly believe in the GPL is not even remotely true.
If you had READ the GPL you'd understand that it's PERFECTLY reasonable under the GPL to contribute and not give back so long as it's kept internal to your own company organization which blows a crater sized hole in your statement that "everyone who firmly believes in the GPL says: everyone who uses open source software must give back, because it was free.
"Do your research, check your facts then write.
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167089</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167905</id>
	<title>Many Enterprises Already Contribute</title>
	<author>omb</author>
	<datestamp>1243870500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Many Enterprises Already Contribute and employ OS developers, but for the biggest this needs to extend for those not directly in the  IT business. Fortune 100 companies could make a larger contribution and still get FOSS essentially FREE.<br><br>More importantly large companies should try to make a contribution to the eco-system in which they live by exerting pressure and making monetary contribution to help remove the enterprise linux killers,<br><br>MS Exchange, calendar<br>Flash<br>ODF<br>MS apps on the desktop<br>AP</htmltext>
<tokenext>Many Enterprises Already Contribute and employ OS developers , but for the biggest this needs to extend for those not directly in the IT business .
Fortune 100 companies could make a larger contribution and still get FOSS essentially FREE.More importantly large companies should try to make a contribution to the eco-system in which they live by exerting pressure and making monetary contribution to help remove the enterprise linux killers,MS Exchange , calendarFlashODFMS apps on the desktopAP</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many Enterprises Already Contribute and employ OS developers, but for the biggest this needs to extend for those not directly in the  IT business.
Fortune 100 companies could make a larger contribution and still get FOSS essentially FREE.More importantly large companies should try to make a contribution to the eco-system in which they live by exerting pressure and making monetary contribution to help remove the enterprise linux killers,MS Exchange, calendarFlashODFMS apps on the desktopAP</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28177205</id>
	<title>Re:Call me an idiot but...</title>
	<author>aaron.axvig</author>
	<datestamp>1243872420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>without our code, you have no cost advantage over the competition</p></div><p>Umm if you give away the source code you won't have a cost advantage over the competition either.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>without our code , you have no cost advantage over the competitionUmm if you give away the source code you wo n't have a cost advantage over the competition either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>without our code, you have no cost advantage over the competitionUmm if you give away the source code you won't have a cost advantage over the competition either.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167173</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167143</id>
	<title>Free Software</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243867140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you have to give back, then it's not "free software".   A similar thing was seen in the whole "Linux" vs. "GNU/Linux" debate.  If it's really "free", then why the demands for something in return?  Why the demands for credit?  Why the complaints about freeloaders?  Freeloading is always the result of giving something away for free.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you have to give back , then it 's not " free software " .
A similar thing was seen in the whole " Linux " vs. " GNU/Linux " debate .
If it 's really " free " , then why the demands for something in return ?
Why the demands for credit ?
Why the complaints about freeloaders ?
Freeloading is always the result of giving something away for free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you have to give back, then it's not "free software".
A similar thing was seen in the whole "Linux" vs. "GNU/Linux" debate.
If it's really "free", then why the demands for something in return?
Why the demands for credit?
Why the complaints about freeloaders?
Freeloading is always the result of giving something away for free.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167811</id>
	<title>Forced donation?</title>
	<author>JerryLove</author>
	<datestamp>1243870140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't that the point where charity becomes communism?</p><p>I suppose we need to decide what we are as a community? The autors of free works or the traders of non-free works; an open community, or a community only of those who contribute.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't that the point where charity becomes communism ? I suppose we need to decide what we are as a community ?
The autors of free works or the traders of non-free works ; an open community , or a community only of those who contribute .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't that the point where charity becomes communism?I suppose we need to decide what we are as a community?
The autors of free works or the traders of non-free works; an open community, or a community only of those who contribute.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167529</id>
	<title>Re:But some software is more free than others</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243869000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bug reports are not appreciated, but ignored. The project contributors all have their own agenda, and will not fix your bug unless:</p><p>A. You pay them.<br>B. The bug affects something on their agenda.</p><p>Don't give people the false impression that bug reports on free software carry any kind of weight, or are even appreciated.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bug reports are not appreciated , but ignored .
The project contributors all have their own agenda , and will not fix your bug unless : A. You pay them.B .
The bug affects something on their agenda.Do n't give people the false impression that bug reports on free software carry any kind of weight , or are even appreciated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bug reports are not appreciated, but ignored.
The project contributors all have their own agenda, and will not fix your bug unless:A. You pay them.B.
The bug affects something on their agenda.Don't give people the false impression that bug reports on free software carry any kind of weight, or are even appreciated.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167379</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28179715</id>
	<title>Re:Call me an idiot but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243943400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Idiot!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Idiot !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Idiot!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167173</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28177953</id>
	<title>Re:Speaking as an Enterprise user</title>
	<author>NateTech</author>
	<datestamp>1243880040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Demand != Quality product.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Demand ! = Quality product .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Demand != Quality product.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167519</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28177383</id>
	<title>Re:Giving back is a matter of necessity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243874040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At the moment I'm working for a project that has incorporated alot of open-source code, mostly because it would be unviable if we wrote from scratch. Unfortunately, quite a bit of this code was riddled with serious bugs (race conditions, premature optimisation, etc) or was incomplete ("Hmmm, no uninstall feature, how innovative") which I've got fixes for, but we're still sitting on the fixes because of bureaucratic wrangle involved in making sure that the code we release is properly attributed and approved by the project heads and the process is signed off by an otherwise busy legal department. In the meantime, the code lies dormant inside our source code repository.</p><p>Interestingly, its not because the project supervisors are against the principle of open-source. Quite the contrary, more than once they've suggested that we should just open-source the entire project or put it in the public domain. Its because some of the project's management doesn't understand the implicit value of source code, and the burden of maintaining forks of many open-source programmes when the project has limited funds in the first place. As a result, open-source isn't a high priority.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At the moment I 'm working for a project that has incorporated alot of open-source code , mostly because it would be unviable if we wrote from scratch .
Unfortunately , quite a bit of this code was riddled with serious bugs ( race conditions , premature optimisation , etc ) or was incomplete ( " Hmmm , no uninstall feature , how innovative " ) which I 've got fixes for , but we 're still sitting on the fixes because of bureaucratic wrangle involved in making sure that the code we release is properly attributed and approved by the project heads and the process is signed off by an otherwise busy legal department .
In the meantime , the code lies dormant inside our source code repository.Interestingly , its not because the project supervisors are against the principle of open-source .
Quite the contrary , more than once they 've suggested that we should just open-source the entire project or put it in the public domain .
Its because some of the project 's management does n't understand the implicit value of source code , and the burden of maintaining forks of many open-source programmes when the project has limited funds in the first place .
As a result , open-source is n't a high priority .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At the moment I'm working for a project that has incorporated alot of open-source code, mostly because it would be unviable if we wrote from scratch.
Unfortunately, quite a bit of this code was riddled with serious bugs (race conditions, premature optimisation, etc) or was incomplete ("Hmmm, no uninstall feature, how innovative") which I've got fixes for, but we're still sitting on the fixes because of bureaucratic wrangle involved in making sure that the code we release is properly attributed and approved by the project heads and the process is signed off by an otherwise busy legal department.
In the meantime, the code lies dormant inside our source code repository.Interestingly, its not because the project supervisors are against the principle of open-source.
Quite the contrary, more than once they've suggested that we should just open-source the entire project or put it in the public domain.
Its because some of the project's management doesn't understand the implicit value of source code, and the burden of maintaining forks of many open-source programmes when the project has limited funds in the first place.
As a result, open-source isn't a high priority.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167647</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28170267</id>
	<title>Re:</title>
	<author>clint999</author>
	<datestamp>1243881000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><b>The Free Open Source Software community, that builds free, open source software, is complaining that they are not, in one way or another, being another compensated for their free software?</b></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Free Open Source Software community , that builds free , open source software , is complaining that they are not , in one way or another , being another compensated for their free software ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Free Open Source Software community, that builds free, open source software, is complaining that they are not, in one way or another, being another compensated for their free software?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167097</id>
	<title>Damn right!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243866960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Right on!<br>Screw those leeches! They shouldn't be using our free open source software, they haven't earned the right to use it. It's not free for just anyone you know; only people who contribute to our software should have the right to use it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Right on ! Screw those leeches !
They should n't be using our free open source software , they have n't earned the right to use it .
It 's not free for just anyone you know ; only people who contribute to our software should have the right to use it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right on!Screw those leeches!
They shouldn't be using our free open source software, they haven't earned the right to use it.
It's not free for just anyone you know; only people who contribute to our software should have the right to use it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28169967</id>
	<title>Re:Giving back is a matter of necessity</title>
	<author>DaveV1.0</author>
	<datestamp>1243879440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The license says the corporations don't have to contribute the code that has been developed internally, so why should they, especially if the changes were specific to the internal application of the corporation?</p><p>Your entire post is your opinion, which boils down to "They made it and are following the rules, but I want it so they should give it to me even though they are not required to do so."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The license says the corporations do n't have to contribute the code that has been developed internally , so why should they , especially if the changes were specific to the internal application of the corporation ? Your entire post is your opinion , which boils down to " They made it and are following the rules , but I want it so they should give it to me even though they are not required to do so .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The license says the corporations don't have to contribute the code that has been developed internally, so why should they, especially if the changes were specific to the internal application of the corporation?Your entire post is your opinion, which boils down to "They made it and are following the rules, but I want it so they should give it to me even though they are not required to do so.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167647</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28169173</id>
	<title>Re:Just To Be Clear...</title>
	<author>M. Baranczak</author>
	<datestamp>1243875840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Now we complain that these corporations are taking advantage<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div><p>What's this "we" business? "We" are not complaining, one guy is complaining and he got his complaint posted on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.</p><p>The freeloaders are a fact of life. And they don't really bother me. The value of a piece of software is what it can do for me; it's not dependent on scarcity. If a thousand other people start using this software, it has absolutely no effect on what I can do with it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now we complain that these corporations are taking advantage ...What 's this " we " business ?
" We " are not complaining , one guy is complaining and he got his complaint posted on /.The freeloaders are a fact of life .
And they do n't really bother me .
The value of a piece of software is what it can do for me ; it 's not dependent on scarcity .
If a thousand other people start using this software , it has absolutely no effect on what I can do with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now we complain that these corporations are taking advantage ...What's this "we" business?
"We" are not complaining, one guy is complaining and he got his complaint posted on /.The freeloaders are a fact of life.
And they don't really bother me.
The value of a piece of software is what it can do for me; it's not dependent on scarcity.
If a thousand other people start using this software, it has absolutely no effect on what I can do with it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167405</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167521</id>
	<title>There are NO open source leeches</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243869000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here we go with this crap again...</p><p>Listen folks - there are NO open source leeches.  It is WRONG to put open source out for ALL to use and then start calling people names because they're using the software EXACTLY AS YOU ALLOWED THEM TO DO.</p><p>If you want people to give back what they add THEN PUT IT IN THE LICENSE.  Of course, that will limit the appeal of your software, but such is life.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here we go with this crap again...Listen folks - there are NO open source leeches .
It is WRONG to put open source out for ALL to use and then start calling people names because they 're using the software EXACTLY AS YOU ALLOWED THEM TO DO.If you want people to give back what they add THEN PUT IT IN THE LICENSE .
Of course , that will limit the appeal of your software , but such is life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here we go with this crap again...Listen folks - there are NO open source leeches.
It is WRONG to put open source out for ALL to use and then start calling people names because they're using the software EXACTLY AS YOU ALLOWED THEM TO DO.If you want people to give back what they add THEN PUT IT IN THE LICENSE.
Of course, that will limit the appeal of your software, but such is life.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28174709</id>
	<title>Re:Call me an idiot but...</title>
	<author>dangitman</author>
	<datestamp>1243854840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>over several Linux boxen</p> </div><p>I'll call you an idiot, but only for using the word "boxen," not because of quitting your job. Why the hell would you use that (non) word?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>over several Linux boxen I 'll call you an idiot , but only for using the word " boxen , " not because of quitting your job .
Why the hell would you use that ( non ) word ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>over several Linux boxen I'll call you an idiot, but only for using the word "boxen," not because of quitting your job.
Why the hell would you use that (non) word?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167173</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28172987</id>
	<title>Re:Just To Be Clear...</title>
	<author>Darinbob</author>
	<datestamp>1243848300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It wasn't perverted, it was improved over the old ideological model of the FSF.  Their idea wasn't that software should be used, but that programmers join the great software collective.  The FSF is the organization that thinks Linux distributions that make it easy to include non-free software are wrong, even if the distributions do not provide this non-free software themselves.  Ie, to the FSF it is not enough just to include free software, but they also have to actively discourage non-free software.<br><br>This is misguided.<br><br>The Open Source envisioned by Eric Raymond and others provides an alternative for those programmers who believe in freely shareable and modifiable software but who don't want to join the collective.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It was n't perverted , it was improved over the old ideological model of the FSF .
Their idea was n't that software should be used , but that programmers join the great software collective .
The FSF is the organization that thinks Linux distributions that make it easy to include non-free software are wrong , even if the distributions do not provide this non-free software themselves .
Ie , to the FSF it is not enough just to include free software , but they also have to actively discourage non-free software.This is misguided.The Open Source envisioned by Eric Raymond and others provides an alternative for those programmers who believe in freely shareable and modifiable software but who do n't want to join the collective .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It wasn't perverted, it was improved over the old ideological model of the FSF.
Their idea wasn't that software should be used, but that programmers join the great software collective.
The FSF is the organization that thinks Linux distributions that make it easy to include non-free software are wrong, even if the distributions do not provide this non-free software themselves.
Ie, to the FSF it is not enough just to include free software, but they also have to actively discourage non-free software.This is misguided.The Open Source envisioned by Eric Raymond and others provides an alternative for those programmers who believe in freely shareable and modifiable software but who don't want to join the collective.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167405</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167129</id>
	<title>Have your cake and eat it?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243867080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>From TFA:<p><div class="quote"><p>The Eclipse community should create peer pressure to prevent the freeloaders and parasites from getting away without punishment</p></div><p>How the hell can anyone consider "punishment" for people who use open-source software? If you make your code open-source then I thought the whole point was that anyone and everyone was free to use it within the constraints of the licence. Show me where it says "Thou shalt giveth back to the open-source community or faceth my wrath".<br> <br>

This mentality is outrageous and damaging to the very principles of open-source software.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From TFA : The Eclipse community should create peer pressure to prevent the freeloaders and parasites from getting away without punishmentHow the hell can anyone consider " punishment " for people who use open-source software ?
If you make your code open-source then I thought the whole point was that anyone and everyone was free to use it within the constraints of the licence .
Show me where it says " Thou shalt giveth back to the open-source community or faceth my wrath " .
This mentality is outrageous and damaging to the very principles of open-source software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From TFA:The Eclipse community should create peer pressure to prevent the freeloaders and parasites from getting away without punishmentHow the hell can anyone consider "punishment" for people who use open-source software?
If you make your code open-source then I thought the whole point was that anyone and everyone was free to use it within the constraints of the licence.
Show me where it says "Thou shalt giveth back to the open-source community or faceth my wrath".
This mentality is outrageous and damaging to the very principles of open-source software.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28168503</id>
	<title>Re:Giving back is a matter of necessity</title>
	<author>Archangel Michael</author>
	<datestamp>1243873020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Very often companies do not do that - instead they are maintaining their fork of code internally, failing to integrate changes from the outside into their own fork, and binding valueable development ressources inside the enterprise in reproducing changes from the outside indepently. The reason for that is usually that there is an intellectual property regime which requires clearance of code before it can leave the company, but insufficient staffing for the actual clearance process.</p></div></blockquote><p>If you've forked a piece of software, and haven't contributed back up because it takes too much in the way of staffing, but you have enough staffing to maintain a forked project, then you're not looking at this right.</p><p>Eventually, what will happen is that the forked project will stagnate and not get the proper patches from upstream, because it is too hard to integrate the patches back into the forked project.</p><p>And when a project goes from 1.33 to 2.03 version change, the forked project will end up withering on the vine.</p><p>The cost is not necessarily economic, either directly or indirectly, for not submitting patches upstream. There is opportunity cost to have a community test and improve the forked product, often not in ways foreseeable.</p><p>The problem with most techies is that they don't know how to speak in financial terms. I happened to be trained in finance, and chose IT because I was good at it.</p><p>I would love to promote FOSS in corporations like yours.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Very often companies do not do that - instead they are maintaining their fork of code internally , failing to integrate changes from the outside into their own fork , and binding valueable development ressources inside the enterprise in reproducing changes from the outside indepently .
The reason for that is usually that there is an intellectual property regime which requires clearance of code before it can leave the company , but insufficient staffing for the actual clearance process.If you 've forked a piece of software , and have n't contributed back up because it takes too much in the way of staffing , but you have enough staffing to maintain a forked project , then you 're not looking at this right.Eventually , what will happen is that the forked project will stagnate and not get the proper patches from upstream , because it is too hard to integrate the patches back into the forked project.And when a project goes from 1.33 to 2.03 version change , the forked project will end up withering on the vine.The cost is not necessarily economic , either directly or indirectly , for not submitting patches upstream .
There is opportunity cost to have a community test and improve the forked product , often not in ways foreseeable.The problem with most techies is that they do n't know how to speak in financial terms .
I happened to be trained in finance , and chose IT because I was good at it.I would love to promote FOSS in corporations like yours .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Very often companies do not do that - instead they are maintaining their fork of code internally, failing to integrate changes from the outside into their own fork, and binding valueable development ressources inside the enterprise in reproducing changes from the outside indepently.
The reason for that is usually that there is an intellectual property regime which requires clearance of code before it can leave the company, but insufficient staffing for the actual clearance process.If you've forked a piece of software, and haven't contributed back up because it takes too much in the way of staffing, but you have enough staffing to maintain a forked project, then you're not looking at this right.Eventually, what will happen is that the forked project will stagnate and not get the proper patches from upstream, because it is too hard to integrate the patches back into the forked project.And when a project goes from 1.33 to 2.03 version change, the forked project will end up withering on the vine.The cost is not necessarily economic, either directly or indirectly, for not submitting patches upstream.
There is opportunity cost to have a community test and improve the forked product, often not in ways foreseeable.The problem with most techies is that they don't know how to speak in financial terms.
I happened to be trained in finance, and chose IT because I was good at it.I would love to promote FOSS in corporations like yours.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167647</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28172303</id>
	<title>Re:There ought to be a law...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243888920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, why in heaven's name would a corporate lawyer favor a different license for each product that he has to check, and bill the company for all the time spent checking... I wouldn't know... but maybe that's why I'm sitting at home unemployed and he's busy evaluating licenses for a hefty amount of $$$<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , why in heaven 's name would a corporate lawyer favor a different license for each product that he has to check , and bill the company for all the time spent checking... I would n't know... but maybe that 's why I 'm sitting at home unemployed and he 's busy evaluating licenses for a hefty amount of $ $ $ : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, why in heaven's name would a corporate lawyer favor a different license for each product that he has to check, and bill the company for all the time spent checking... I wouldn't know... but maybe that's why I'm sitting at home unemployed and he's busy evaluating licenses for a hefty amount of $$$ :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167631</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167111</id>
	<title>Trickle Down Theory</title>
	<author>JoshDanziger</author>
	<datestamp>1243867020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Vendors who contribute heavily to open source projects do so in large part because their products are used with open source software.  To use IBM as an example, some portion of every dollar spent on IBM hardware goes towards furthering open source development.  The ultimate corporate consumers do therefore contribute, albeit not directly.  Whether or not they should be making more direct or more substantive contributions may still be up for debate, but it seems clear - to me at least - that IBM's model would not exist if these companies were not using Linux.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Vendors who contribute heavily to open source projects do so in large part because their products are used with open source software .
To use IBM as an example , some portion of every dollar spent on IBM hardware goes towards furthering open source development .
The ultimate corporate consumers do therefore contribute , albeit not directly .
Whether or not they should be making more direct or more substantive contributions may still be up for debate , but it seems clear - to me at least - that IBM 's model would not exist if these companies were not using Linux .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Vendors who contribute heavily to open source projects do so in large part because their products are used with open source software.
To use IBM as an example, some portion of every dollar spent on IBM hardware goes towards furthering open source development.
The ultimate corporate consumers do therefore contribute, albeit not directly.
Whether or not they should be making more direct or more substantive contributions may still be up for debate, but it seems clear - to me at least - that IBM's model would not exist if these companies were not using Linux.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28168841</id>
	<title>Here's What You Can Do</title>
	<author>vinn</author>
	<datestamp>1243874580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is directed at all of you middle level managers out there.  Yes you.</p><p>
I worked on one of the large open source projects for over 5 years.  I saw the day in, day out grind of the project.  Now I'm a middle level manager in the IT world and I'm seeing things from the other side.  It's one thing if you use a small, free utility a few times a week.  It's quite another if you're running your business on it.  Now, lots of people here are saying "blah blah, it's free, it's ok to not contribute."  I say BS.  All take and no give just makes you a jerk.  If each of us just helps a little bit, we only make things even better.</p><p>
There are a TON of things you can do that don't involve donating code, it just requires you get off your lazy butt and do something.</p><ul>
<li>  I bet your company has a way of making charitable contributions.  Do you know how that works?  You probably fill out a form and give it to someone.  They evaluate the merits of the application and possibly write a check.  If you write something like, "This piece of free software saved us $20,000 in implementation costs last year." and then fight for it, you can probably get some $$$ from your company to donate back to the project.  Yes, projects like money.  Even if it's just for beer money.</li>

<li>  Donate documentation.  All documentation can be better, take some time to get someone to make it better.</li>

<li>  Translate.  A lot of open source projects have i18n capabilities and if you have someone that can translate the English into Swahili it'd be appreciated.</li>

<li>  Forum mongering / bug reporting.  Hang out in the forums for the project, answer questions.  Log into the project's bugzilla and triage bugs.  No bugzilla?  Offer to set one up for them and host it.</li>

<li>  Use your secret manager-fu skills to help the project out.  This can mean different things, but sometimes it's very helpful to have someone act as an organizer, a lightning rod, or in general a communicator for a project.  For instance, once there was a project that could really benefit by having about 5 VMWare licenses.  I realized none of the developers lived in the US or spoke English as a native language.  Therefore, it was easiest for me to make some phone calls and get the licenses - I called VMWare and arranged the whole thing.  It took about 2 hours but was immensely useful for development.</li>

<li>  Hire interns.  How does your intern policy work?  Do you even know?  Sometimes it's possible to get an intern to work for you and in turn you can donate some of the intern's time to work on a project.</li>

<li> Are your vendors using open source?  Get them to contribute back in one of these ways too.  Talk to them about it - get them to understand why it's important.</li>
</ul><p>So, if you're a mid-level manager and you say "I can't" donate to open source projects, then you're just being lazy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is directed at all of you middle level managers out there .
Yes you .
I worked on one of the large open source projects for over 5 years .
I saw the day in , day out grind of the project .
Now I 'm a middle level manager in the IT world and I 'm seeing things from the other side .
It 's one thing if you use a small , free utility a few times a week .
It 's quite another if you 're running your business on it .
Now , lots of people here are saying " blah blah , it 's free , it 's ok to not contribute .
" I say BS .
All take and no give just makes you a jerk .
If each of us just helps a little bit , we only make things even better .
There are a TON of things you can do that do n't involve donating code , it just requires you get off your lazy butt and do something .
I bet your company has a way of making charitable contributions .
Do you know how that works ?
You probably fill out a form and give it to someone .
They evaluate the merits of the application and possibly write a check .
If you write something like , " This piece of free software saved us $ 20,000 in implementation costs last year .
" and then fight for it , you can probably get some $ $ $ from your company to donate back to the project .
Yes , projects like money .
Even if it 's just for beer money .
Donate documentation .
All documentation can be better , take some time to get someone to make it better .
Translate. A lot of open source projects have i18n capabilities and if you have someone that can translate the English into Swahili it 'd be appreciated .
Forum mongering / bug reporting .
Hang out in the forums for the project , answer questions .
Log into the project 's bugzilla and triage bugs .
No bugzilla ?
Offer to set one up for them and host it .
Use your secret manager-fu skills to help the project out .
This can mean different things , but sometimes it 's very helpful to have someone act as an organizer , a lightning rod , or in general a communicator for a project .
For instance , once there was a project that could really benefit by having about 5 VMWare licenses .
I realized none of the developers lived in the US or spoke English as a native language .
Therefore , it was easiest for me to make some phone calls and get the licenses - I called VMWare and arranged the whole thing .
It took about 2 hours but was immensely useful for development .
Hire interns .
How does your intern policy work ?
Do you even know ?
Sometimes it 's possible to get an intern to work for you and in turn you can donate some of the intern 's time to work on a project .
Are your vendors using open source ?
Get them to contribute back in one of these ways too .
Talk to them about it - get them to understand why it 's important .
So , if you 're a mid-level manager and you say " I ca n't " donate to open source projects , then you 're just being lazy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is directed at all of you middle level managers out there.
Yes you.
I worked on one of the large open source projects for over 5 years.
I saw the day in, day out grind of the project.
Now I'm a middle level manager in the IT world and I'm seeing things from the other side.
It's one thing if you use a small, free utility a few times a week.
It's quite another if you're running your business on it.
Now, lots of people here are saying "blah blah, it's free, it's ok to not contribute.
"  I say BS.
All take and no give just makes you a jerk.
If each of us just helps a little bit, we only make things even better.
There are a TON of things you can do that don't involve donating code, it just requires you get off your lazy butt and do something.
I bet your company has a way of making charitable contributions.
Do you know how that works?
You probably fill out a form and give it to someone.
They evaluate the merits of the application and possibly write a check.
If you write something like, "This piece of free software saved us $20,000 in implementation costs last year.
" and then fight for it, you can probably get some $$$ from your company to donate back to the project.
Yes, projects like money.
Even if it's just for beer money.
Donate documentation.
All documentation can be better, take some time to get someone to make it better.
Translate.  A lot of open source projects have i18n capabilities and if you have someone that can translate the English into Swahili it'd be appreciated.
Forum mongering / bug reporting.
Hang out in the forums for the project, answer questions.
Log into the project's bugzilla and triage bugs.
No bugzilla?
Offer to set one up for them and host it.
Use your secret manager-fu skills to help the project out.
This can mean different things, but sometimes it's very helpful to have someone act as an organizer, a lightning rod, or in general a communicator for a project.
For instance, once there was a project that could really benefit by having about 5 VMWare licenses.
I realized none of the developers lived in the US or spoke English as a native language.
Therefore, it was easiest for me to make some phone calls and get the licenses - I called VMWare and arranged the whole thing.
It took about 2 hours but was immensely useful for development.
Hire interns.
How does your intern policy work?
Do you even know?
Sometimes it's possible to get an intern to work for you and in turn you can donate some of the intern's time to work on a project.
Are your vendors using open source?
Get them to contribute back in one of these ways too.
Talk to them about it - get them to understand why it's important.
So, if you're a mid-level manager and you say "I can't" donate to open source projects, then you're just being lazy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28168605</id>
	<title>You can still contribute...</title>
	<author>KendyForTheState</author>
	<datestamp>1243873500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm not smart enough to make any direct contributions, but I do have a linuxfund.org credit card, so every time I use my credit card for my consulting business, instead of getting points or money back a contribution is made to open source development.  I get lots of comments about the Tux picture on the card whenever I use it. Check it out a <a href="http://www.linuxfund.org./" title="www.linuxfund.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.linuxfund.org./</a> [www.linuxfund.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not smart enough to make any direct contributions , but I do have a linuxfund.org credit card , so every time I use my credit card for my consulting business , instead of getting points or money back a contribution is made to open source development .
I get lots of comments about the Tux picture on the card whenever I use it .
Check it out a http : //www.linuxfund.org./ [ www.linuxfund.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not smart enough to make any direct contributions, but I do have a linuxfund.org credit card, so every time I use my credit card for my consulting business, instead of getting points or money back a contribution is made to open source development.
I get lots of comments about the Tux picture on the card whenever I use it.
Check it out a http://www.linuxfund.org./ [www.linuxfund.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167397</id>
	<title>They are 'paying back' the FOSS community</title>
	<author>Bearhouse</author>
	<datestamp>1243868400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>By 'legitimising' the software, by using it.  Just as IBM got people used to the idea of using PCs in a business environment, so big organisations, by using Linux and Oo, are saying that it's "OK" to use this stuff.  As more and more businesses use FOSS, pressure will increase on hardware and software companies to improve support - in fact, this trend is well underway...I'm really looking forward to the time when I can go to the local store and pickup a laptop or whatever and it's got Linux pre-installed, I get home/to the client's site, plug it in and all my peripherals 'just work', I can install and run my old windows legacy apps 'out of the box' etc.</p><p>We're pretty close already...(those of you that have not tried - for example - Ubuntu lately, try again.  I just installed on a brand-new laptop that came with Vista as standard and everything worked pretty well, including traditional problem areas such as video, wifi and bluetooth.  Impressive.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>By 'legitimising ' the software , by using it .
Just as IBM got people used to the idea of using PCs in a business environment , so big organisations , by using Linux and Oo , are saying that it 's " OK " to use this stuff .
As more and more businesses use FOSS , pressure will increase on hardware and software companies to improve support - in fact , this trend is well underway...I 'm really looking forward to the time when I can go to the local store and pickup a laptop or whatever and it 's got Linux pre-installed , I get home/to the client 's site , plug it in and all my peripherals 'just work ' , I can install and run my old windows legacy apps 'out of the box ' etc.We 're pretty close already... ( those of you that have not tried - for example - Ubuntu lately , try again .
I just installed on a brand-new laptop that came with Vista as standard and everything worked pretty well , including traditional problem areas such as video , wifi and bluetooth .
Impressive. )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By 'legitimising' the software, by using it.
Just as IBM got people used to the idea of using PCs in a business environment, so big organisations, by using Linux and Oo, are saying that it's "OK" to use this stuff.
As more and more businesses use FOSS, pressure will increase on hardware and software companies to improve support - in fact, this trend is well underway...I'm really looking forward to the time when I can go to the local store and pickup a laptop or whatever and it's got Linux pre-installed, I get home/to the client's site, plug it in and all my peripherals 'just work', I can install and run my old windows legacy apps 'out of the box' etc.We're pretty close already...(those of you that have not tried - for example - Ubuntu lately, try again.
I just installed on a brand-new laptop that came with Vista as standard and everything worked pretty well, including traditional problem areas such as video, wifi and bluetooth.
Impressive.)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167701</id>
	<title>Bucardo.org</title>
	<author>davejenkins</author>
	<datestamp>1243869660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I used to work at a company that used open source almost everywhere.  We were pretty zealous about it, looking back now.  At the core of the data structure, we were using Postgresql and had a scheme of mastermaster replication between two data centers.  We developed a way to handle this.  After some soul searching, and a realistic analysis, the owners came to the conclusion that the software didn't really help our direct competitors, and would be safer/better out in the open.  So, we open sourced it: <a href="http://www.bucardo.org/" title="bucardo.org">http://www.bucardo.org/</a> [bucardo.org]


Here is the press release from the company: <a href="http://www.backcountrycorp.com/corporate/section/3/press/a511/Backcountry.com\%20finally\%20gives\%20something\%20back\%20to\%20the\%20open\%20source\%20community.html" title="backcountrycorp.com">Backcountry finally gives something back</a> [backcountrycorp.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>I used to work at a company that used open source almost everywhere .
We were pretty zealous about it , looking back now .
At the core of the data structure , we were using Postgresql and had a scheme of mastermaster replication between two data centers .
We developed a way to handle this .
After some soul searching , and a realistic analysis , the owners came to the conclusion that the software did n't really help our direct competitors , and would be safer/better out in the open .
So , we open sourced it : http : //www.bucardo.org/ [ bucardo.org ] Here is the press release from the company : Backcountry finally gives something back [ backcountrycorp.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I used to work at a company that used open source almost everywhere.
We were pretty zealous about it, looking back now.
At the core of the data structure, we were using Postgresql and had a scheme of mastermaster replication between two data centers.
We developed a way to handle this.
After some soul searching, and a realistic analysis, the owners came to the conclusion that the software didn't really help our direct competitors, and would be safer/better out in the open.
So, we open sourced it: http://www.bucardo.org/ [bucardo.org]


Here is the press release from the company: Backcountry finally gives something back [backcountrycorp.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167217</id>
	<title>Re:Of course they *should*...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243867440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Companies using cost free solutions can make small financial donations to those projects. Even if it's only 10\% of what they're saving. The world has a lot of companies, a lot of them are using free software. I'm sure a few hundred bucks from a number of them would make a huge difference.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Companies using cost free solutions can make small financial donations to those projects .
Even if it 's only 10 \ % of what they 're saving .
The world has a lot of companies , a lot of them are using free software .
I 'm sure a few hundred bucks from a number of them would make a huge difference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Companies using cost free solutions can make small financial donations to those projects.
Even if it's only 10\% of what they're saving.
The world has a lot of companies, a lot of them are using free software.
I'm sure a few hundred bucks from a number of them would make a huge difference.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167075</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167461</id>
	<title>Re:Of course they *should*...</title>
	<author>sgt scrub</author>
	<datestamp>1243868640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the administrators at those small companies see a way to improve the software then give those improvements back then that should be enough.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the administrators at those small companies see a way to improve the software then give those improvements back then that should be enough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the administrators at those small companies see a way to improve the software then give those improvements back then that should be enough.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167075</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167405</id>
	<title>Re:Just To Be Clear...</title>
	<author>eln</author>
	<datestamp>1243868400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Agreed.  The OSI during the late 1990s went out of their way to try and make Open Source palatable to businesses, and did so in large part by trying to water down the "share and share alike" ethic of the Free Software movement.  These are the people like Eric S Raymond and his ilk who went around urging companies to take in Open Source software.  They sold it with the whole Cathedral and Bazaar thing, where these giant companies could leverage the productive power of a large group of developers without having to pay for a large group of developers.  They intentionally glossed over and marginalized the FSF's idea that consumers of Free Software should contribute to and redistribute the code, and created a split between the "Free Software" and "Open Source" concepts.  They "approved" a significant number of software licenses that were technically Open Source, but were entirely against the basic idea Free Software was built on.  In return for all this kowtowing to corporations and putting their concerns above the basic ethos of Free Software, they were rewarded with board positions at high flying dot-com companies, and millions of now-worthless shares of inflated dot-com stock.
<br> <br>
Now we complain that these corporations are taking advantage of Open Source software in exactly the way the OSI told them they could?  Sure, some of them played lip service to "contributing back to the community," and some of them even do.  But none of them will ever contribute back as much as they get, because the entire reason they went with Open Source in the first place was so they could get all the development work without having to pay for it.
<br> <br>
This is what you get when you take a movement based on an ideal and pervert it to try and take "market share" for a free product.  You get more people using the product, but you lose the ideal in the process.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed .
The OSI during the late 1990s went out of their way to try and make Open Source palatable to businesses , and did so in large part by trying to water down the " share and share alike " ethic of the Free Software movement .
These are the people like Eric S Raymond and his ilk who went around urging companies to take in Open Source software .
They sold it with the whole Cathedral and Bazaar thing , where these giant companies could leverage the productive power of a large group of developers without having to pay for a large group of developers .
They intentionally glossed over and marginalized the FSF 's idea that consumers of Free Software should contribute to and redistribute the code , and created a split between the " Free Software " and " Open Source " concepts .
They " approved " a significant number of software licenses that were technically Open Source , but were entirely against the basic idea Free Software was built on .
In return for all this kowtowing to corporations and putting their concerns above the basic ethos of Free Software , they were rewarded with board positions at high flying dot-com companies , and millions of now-worthless shares of inflated dot-com stock .
Now we complain that these corporations are taking advantage of Open Source software in exactly the way the OSI told them they could ?
Sure , some of them played lip service to " contributing back to the community , " and some of them even do .
But none of them will ever contribute back as much as they get , because the entire reason they went with Open Source in the first place was so they could get all the development work without having to pay for it .
This is what you get when you take a movement based on an ideal and pervert it to try and take " market share " for a free product .
You get more people using the product , but you lose the ideal in the process .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed.
The OSI during the late 1990s went out of their way to try and make Open Source palatable to businesses, and did so in large part by trying to water down the "share and share alike" ethic of the Free Software movement.
These are the people like Eric S Raymond and his ilk who went around urging companies to take in Open Source software.
They sold it with the whole Cathedral and Bazaar thing, where these giant companies could leverage the productive power of a large group of developers without having to pay for a large group of developers.
They intentionally glossed over and marginalized the FSF's idea that consumers of Free Software should contribute to and redistribute the code, and created a split between the "Free Software" and "Open Source" concepts.
They "approved" a significant number of software licenses that were technically Open Source, but were entirely against the basic idea Free Software was built on.
In return for all this kowtowing to corporations and putting their concerns above the basic ethos of Free Software, they were rewarded with board positions at high flying dot-com companies, and millions of now-worthless shares of inflated dot-com stock.
Now we complain that these corporations are taking advantage of Open Source software in exactly the way the OSI told them they could?
Sure, some of them played lip service to "contributing back to the community," and some of them even do.
But none of them will ever contribute back as much as they get, because the entire reason they went with Open Source in the first place was so they could get all the development work without having to pay for it.
This is what you get when you take a movement based on an ideal and pervert it to try and take "market share" for a free product.
You get more people using the product, but you lose the ideal in the process.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167087</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167203</id>
	<title>open source 'leeches' = Canonical</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243867380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Blood sucking parasite!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Blood sucking parasite !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Blood sucking parasite!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167329</id>
	<title>Walter Sobchak would say...</title>
	<author>j-turkey</author>
	<datestamp>1243867920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>Fair!?! WHO'S THE FUCKING NIHILIST HERE! What are you, a bunch of fucking crybabies? </i> </p><p>(I know...the open source community != Nihilists, but I couldn't resist the chance to use this otherwise applicable Big Lebowski quote)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fair ! ? !
WHO 'S THE FUCKING NIHILIST HERE !
What are you , a bunch of fucking crybabies ?
( I know...the open source community ! = Nihilists , but I could n't resist the chance to use this otherwise applicable Big Lebowski quote )</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Fair!?!
WHO'S THE FUCKING NIHILIST HERE!
What are you, a bunch of fucking crybabies?
(I know...the open source community != Nihilists, but I couldn't resist the chance to use this otherwise applicable Big Lebowski quote)
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167737</id>
	<title>Re:But some software is more free than others</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243869840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>This is exactly what the little voice in the head of everyone who firmly believes in the GPL says: everyone who uses open source software must give back, because it was free. I think people should shut that voice up. Now.</i></p><p>I firmly believe in the GPL and I don't believe "everyone who uses open source software must give back". I believe in following the license: use it freely, modify it freely, but give back your changes if you distribute. Anybody who doesn't support this position is free to create and use their own license on their own code.</p><p>This whole thing is basically a strawman or a troll or similar. One guy who noboby's ever heard of says something stupid/controversial and then people (including you) start representing his view as if it was in any way representative of "GPL supporters".<br>Given how "GPL Supporters" *constantly* emphasize the key point that companies don't have to give anything back at all unless they redistribute, it's pretty clear that his view is almost totally unrepresentative.</p><p>The guy's probably either got some personal beef (wishes he hadn't released his stuff under the GPL so now attacks companies who use it and don't contribute, even thought that was his decision) or he just wants to promote his company or product.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is exactly what the little voice in the head of everyone who firmly believes in the GPL says : everyone who uses open source software must give back , because it was free .
I think people should shut that voice up .
Now.I firmly believe in the GPL and I do n't believe " everyone who uses open source software must give back " .
I believe in following the license : use it freely , modify it freely , but give back your changes if you distribute .
Anybody who does n't support this position is free to create and use their own license on their own code.This whole thing is basically a strawman or a troll or similar .
One guy who noboby 's ever heard of says something stupid/controversial and then people ( including you ) start representing his view as if it was in any way representative of " GPL supporters " .Given how " GPL Supporters " * constantly * emphasize the key point that companies do n't have to give anything back at all unless they redistribute , it 's pretty clear that his view is almost totally unrepresentative.The guy 's probably either got some personal beef ( wishes he had n't released his stuff under the GPL so now attacks companies who use it and do n't contribute , even thought that was his decision ) or he just wants to promote his company or product .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is exactly what the little voice in the head of everyone who firmly believes in the GPL says: everyone who uses open source software must give back, because it was free.
I think people should shut that voice up.
Now.I firmly believe in the GPL and I don't believe "everyone who uses open source software must give back".
I believe in following the license: use it freely, modify it freely, but give back your changes if you distribute.
Anybody who doesn't support this position is free to create and use their own license on their own code.This whole thing is basically a strawman or a troll or similar.
One guy who noboby's ever heard of says something stupid/controversial and then people (including you) start representing his view as if it was in any way representative of "GPL supporters".Given how "GPL Supporters" *constantly* emphasize the key point that companies don't have to give anything back at all unless they redistribute, it's pretty clear that his view is almost totally unrepresentative.The guy's probably either got some personal beef (wishes he hadn't released his stuff under the GPL so now attacks companies who use it and don't contribute, even thought that was his decision) or he just wants to promote his company or product.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167089</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28177843</id>
	<title>If that's what investors want...</title>
	<author>NateTech</author>
	<datestamp>1243879080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Any tech company should give back to some "community" only if it doesn't dilute the value of my investment returns.</p><p>Welcome to Business 101.</p><p>A public company exists solely to make a profit for its shareholders.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Any tech company should give back to some " community " only if it does n't dilute the value of my investment returns.Welcome to Business 101.A public company exists solely to make a profit for its shareholders .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any tech company should give back to some "community" only if it doesn't dilute the value of my investment returns.Welcome to Business 101.A public company exists solely to make a profit for its shareholders.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28169355</id>
	<title>My response to the, "Give Back!" screamers</title>
	<author>petrus4</author>
	<datestamp>1243876620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You would likely go a lot further by looking to the state of your own house, before condemning anyone else.</p><p>People who are paranoid about the amount that others reciprocate, can not, IMHO, honestly claim to be part of the proverbial "gift culture."</p><p>Said gift culture (and genuine adherents of it) is not concerned with whether or not reciprocation happens.</p><p>The giving doesn't rightfully occur with expectance of reciprocity.  It doesn't rightfully occur with any preconception about or prejudice concerning end use.  If you need to stop and ask yourself why you're doing something for someone else at all, you've already ruined the effect, and you're already doing it for the wrong reasons.  Genuine compassion and altruism have no motive, ulterior or otherwise.</p><p>It isn't done because you expect to get something back.  It's done, if for any conscious reason at all, because said degree of altruism is a part of your own identity.  It needs to be done to maintain your own consciousness, your own empathy, your own identity, your own sanity.</p><p>I am, have always been, and will always be utterly convinced of the true moral superiority of the BSD license, and this is just one more reason why I remain in continual opposition to, and defiance of, Richard Stallman.  Fear and paranoia about reciprocity, associated with open source, takes something which is, and has been, uniquely beautiful within overall human history, and unusually, genuinely noble for us as a species, and makes it something mean-spirited and ugly.</p><p>Larry Wall was right.  That which is freely given, can only be freely given; it cannot be taken.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You would likely go a lot further by looking to the state of your own house , before condemning anyone else.People who are paranoid about the amount that others reciprocate , can not , IMHO , honestly claim to be part of the proverbial " gift culture .
" Said gift culture ( and genuine adherents of it ) is not concerned with whether or not reciprocation happens.The giving does n't rightfully occur with expectance of reciprocity .
It does n't rightfully occur with any preconception about or prejudice concerning end use .
If you need to stop and ask yourself why you 're doing something for someone else at all , you 've already ruined the effect , and you 're already doing it for the wrong reasons .
Genuine compassion and altruism have no motive , ulterior or otherwise.It is n't done because you expect to get something back .
It 's done , if for any conscious reason at all , because said degree of altruism is a part of your own identity .
It needs to be done to maintain your own consciousness , your own empathy , your own identity , your own sanity.I am , have always been , and will always be utterly convinced of the true moral superiority of the BSD license , and this is just one more reason why I remain in continual opposition to , and defiance of , Richard Stallman .
Fear and paranoia about reciprocity , associated with open source , takes something which is , and has been , uniquely beautiful within overall human history , and unusually , genuinely noble for us as a species , and makes it something mean-spirited and ugly.Larry Wall was right .
That which is freely given , can only be freely given ; it can not be taken .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You would likely go a lot further by looking to the state of your own house, before condemning anyone else.People who are paranoid about the amount that others reciprocate, can not, IMHO, honestly claim to be part of the proverbial "gift culture.
"Said gift culture (and genuine adherents of it) is not concerned with whether or not reciprocation happens.The giving doesn't rightfully occur with expectance of reciprocity.
It doesn't rightfully occur with any preconception about or prejudice concerning end use.
If you need to stop and ask yourself why you're doing something for someone else at all, you've already ruined the effect, and you're already doing it for the wrong reasons.
Genuine compassion and altruism have no motive, ulterior or otherwise.It isn't done because you expect to get something back.
It's done, if for any conscious reason at all, because said degree of altruism is a part of your own identity.
It needs to be done to maintain your own consciousness, your own empathy, your own identity, your own sanity.I am, have always been, and will always be utterly convinced of the true moral superiority of the BSD license, and this is just one more reason why I remain in continual opposition to, and defiance of, Richard Stallman.
Fear and paranoia about reciprocity, associated with open source, takes something which is, and has been, uniquely beautiful within overall human history, and unusually, genuinely noble for us as a species, and makes it something mean-spirited and ugly.Larry Wall was right.
That which is freely given, can only be freely given; it cannot be taken.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28168363</id>
	<title>Re:But some software is more free than others</title>
	<author>geoffrobinson</author>
	<datestamp>1243872420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think I read somewhere that Oracle doesn't like Microsoft.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think I read somewhere that Oracle does n't like Microsoft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think I read somewhere that Oracle doesn't like Microsoft.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167389</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28169937</id>
	<title>Free As In</title>
	<author>sexconker</author>
	<datestamp>1243879320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Beer?<br>Speech?<br>WHAAA I'M TAKING MY BALL AND RUNNING HOME?</p><p>Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.  That's because I'm YELLING.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Beer ? Speech ? WHAAA I 'M TAKING MY BALL AND RUNNING HOME ? Filter error : Do n't use so many caps .
It 's like YELLING .
That 's because I 'm YELLING .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Beer?Speech?WHAAA I'M TAKING MY BALL AND RUNNING HOME?Filter error: Don't use so many caps.
It's like YELLING.
That's because I'm YELLING.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167997</id>
	<title>Re:But some software is more free than others</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1243870860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's okay, because the way the license is written, you can't force it. In fact, the license is specifically designed to prevent you from forcing users to pay. As long as there is interest in maintaining the free option, it will be there.</p><p>Users give back just by creating a community, from which you can gauge their interest. If the users mostly use it in a certain way, you know what parts to support. If the users bitch about a certain issue, you know what you need to fix. The users capable of giving back more will do so if it helps them in some way. They'll do more of it if you make it easy; I know that I've filed more bug reports with Ubuntu than anything else because they make it easy (so long as you have plenty of bandwidth, heh. Don't try to use Ubuntu websites via modem, mang. Serious fail.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's okay , because the way the license is written , you ca n't force it .
In fact , the license is specifically designed to prevent you from forcing users to pay .
As long as there is interest in maintaining the free option , it will be there.Users give back just by creating a community , from which you can gauge their interest .
If the users mostly use it in a certain way , you know what parts to support .
If the users bitch about a certain issue , you know what you need to fix .
The users capable of giving back more will do so if it helps them in some way .
They 'll do more of it if you make it easy ; I know that I 've filed more bug reports with Ubuntu than anything else because they make it easy ( so long as you have plenty of bandwidth , heh .
Do n't try to use Ubuntu websites via modem , mang .
Serious fail .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's okay, because the way the license is written, you can't force it.
In fact, the license is specifically designed to prevent you from forcing users to pay.
As long as there is interest in maintaining the free option, it will be there.Users give back just by creating a community, from which you can gauge their interest.
If the users mostly use it in a certain way, you know what parts to support.
If the users bitch about a certain issue, you know what you need to fix.
The users capable of giving back more will do so if it helps them in some way.
They'll do more of it if you make it easy; I know that I've filed more bug reports with Ubuntu than anything else because they make it easy (so long as you have plenty of bandwidth, heh.
Don't try to use Ubuntu websites via modem, mang.
Serious fail.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167089</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28168885</id>
	<title>There are Contributors at Every Level</title>
	<author>F.O.Dobbs</author>
	<datestamp>1243874760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm the Community Manager for <a href="http://www.zenoss.com/" title="zenoss.com" rel="nofollow">Zenoss</a> [zenoss.com], an open source enterprise network monitoring application.  We have thousands of installations and even more users, and we see a lot of the same participation percentages seen by Linux and Wikipedia.  There's a great article call <a href="http://www.useit.com/alertbox/participation\_inequality.html" title="useit.com" rel="nofollow">Participation Inequality</a> [useit.com], pointing out that about 90\% of users are never heard from again and 10\% participate in forums, mailing lists and other indirect ways.  We see similar numbers ourselves, and we get really great contributions from hundreds of users from enterprise IT staffs.  Extensions, patches, testing and documentation are all provided by our community, you just have to work with them to lower the barriers to entry.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm the Community Manager for Zenoss [ zenoss.com ] , an open source enterprise network monitoring application .
We have thousands of installations and even more users , and we see a lot of the same participation percentages seen by Linux and Wikipedia .
There 's a great article call Participation Inequality [ useit.com ] , pointing out that about 90 \ % of users are never heard from again and 10 \ % participate in forums , mailing lists and other indirect ways .
We see similar numbers ourselves , and we get really great contributions from hundreds of users from enterprise IT staffs .
Extensions , patches , testing and documentation are all provided by our community , you just have to work with them to lower the barriers to entry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm the Community Manager for Zenoss [zenoss.com], an open source enterprise network monitoring application.
We have thousands of installations and even more users, and we see a lot of the same participation percentages seen by Linux and Wikipedia.
There's a great article call Participation Inequality [useit.com], pointing out that about 90\% of users are never heard from again and 10\% participate in forums, mailing lists and other indirect ways.
We see similar numbers ourselves, and we get really great contributions from hundreds of users from enterprise IT staffs.
Extensions, patches, testing and documentation are all provided by our community, you just have to work with them to lower the barriers to entry.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28169511</id>
	<title>Re:There ought to be a law...</title>
	<author>ishmalius</author>
	<datestamp>1243877340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think that companies actually have problems with the concept of contributing to open source.  Many of them do.  Big example:  Eclipse, with a LOT of corporate support.</p><p>I think the reason is that they are trying to keep their legal burden to a minimum.  Requiring legal assistance to determine what is proprietary and what is open, assurance of provenance (did not borrow/steal from O/S), etc, is just too much for some companies and their teams to worry about.  A considerable amount of documentation would need to be maintained to delineate the border between contributing and not contributing.  A rule of "don't contribute" is the simple, clean and easy way to avoid it.  Possibly if there were some commonly agreed-upon public and open mechanism to assist in this, there would be much more O/S contribution, especially from smaller firms.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think that companies actually have problems with the concept of contributing to open source .
Many of them do .
Big example : Eclipse , with a LOT of corporate support.I think the reason is that they are trying to keep their legal burden to a minimum .
Requiring legal assistance to determine what is proprietary and what is open , assurance of provenance ( did not borrow/steal from O/S ) , etc , is just too much for some companies and their teams to worry about .
A considerable amount of documentation would need to be maintained to delineate the border between contributing and not contributing .
A rule of " do n't contribute " is the simple , clean and easy way to avoid it .
Possibly if there were some commonly agreed-upon public and open mechanism to assist in this , there would be much more O/S contribution , especially from smaller firms .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think that companies actually have problems with the concept of contributing to open source.
Many of them do.
Big example:  Eclipse, with a LOT of corporate support.I think the reason is that they are trying to keep their legal burden to a minimum.
Requiring legal assistance to determine what is proprietary and what is open, assurance of provenance (did not borrow/steal from O/S), etc, is just too much for some companies and their teams to worry about.
A considerable amount of documentation would need to be maintained to delineate the border between contributing and not contributing.
A rule of "don't contribute" is the simple, clean and easy way to avoid it.
Possibly if there were some commonly agreed-upon public and open mechanism to assist in this, there would be much more O/S contribution, especially from smaller firms.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167631</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167413</id>
	<title>Re:Speaking as an Enterprise user</title>
	<author>quasigenx</author>
	<datestamp>1243868460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I usually manage to sell the concept of contributing as a future compatibility issue. If you make a one-off change and don't get it merged back, your company is going to be the one supporting that change in the future.

If you can get it merged, there is a very good chance that you will be able to deploy future versions without modifications.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I usually manage to sell the concept of contributing as a future compatibility issue .
If you make a one-off change and do n't get it merged back , your company is going to be the one supporting that change in the future .
If you can get it merged , there is a very good chance that you will be able to deploy future versions without modifications .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I usually manage to sell the concept of contributing as a future compatibility issue.
If you make a one-off change and don't get it merged back, your company is going to be the one supporting that change in the future.
If you can get it merged, there is a very good chance that you will be able to deploy future versions without modifications.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167225</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167089</id>
	<title>But some software is more free than others</title>
	<author>Tinctorius</author>
	<datestamp>1243866960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is exactly what the little voice in the head of everyone who firmly
believes in the GPL says: everyone who uses open source software must give
back, because it was free. I think people should shut that voice up. Now.</p><p>The problem of freeloaders is approached here with sticks. Although that
approach may work fine for some software or other licensed stuff, they work
horribly if the customer has a choice. Instead, try the carrots approach.
Make users fall in love with your project, so they actually <em>want</em> to
give back to the software. Unfortunately, I don't know how to make the
heartless, money-driven enterprise IT fall in love with a bunch of code, but it
would obviously be a more durable solution than punishing everyone (what about
other users?) who doesn't give back.</p><p>It all gives the statement "this is free software" such a hypocritical ring
to it, and that's probably the last thing you want if you're building a
community. If your software is free, then everything you do with it must be a
free choice, regardless of the context you're using it in.</p><p>tl;dr <em>Forcing</em> people to contribute to <em>free</em> software is
(oxy)moronic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is exactly what the little voice in the head of everyone who firmly believes in the GPL says : everyone who uses open source software must give back , because it was free .
I think people should shut that voice up .
Now.The problem of freeloaders is approached here with sticks .
Although that approach may work fine for some software or other licensed stuff , they work horribly if the customer has a choice .
Instead , try the carrots approach .
Make users fall in love with your project , so they actually want to give back to the software .
Unfortunately , I do n't know how to make the heartless , money-driven enterprise IT fall in love with a bunch of code , but it would obviously be a more durable solution than punishing everyone ( what about other users ?
) who does n't give back.It all gives the statement " this is free software " such a hypocritical ring to it , and that 's probably the last thing you want if you 're building a community .
If your software is free , then everything you do with it must be a free choice , regardless of the context you 're using it in.tl ; dr Forcing people to contribute to free software is ( oxy ) moronic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is exactly what the little voice in the head of everyone who firmly
believes in the GPL says: everyone who uses open source software must give
back, because it was free.
I think people should shut that voice up.
Now.The problem of freeloaders is approached here with sticks.
Although that
approach may work fine for some software or other licensed stuff, they work
horribly if the customer has a choice.
Instead, try the carrots approach.
Make users fall in love with your project, so they actually want to
give back to the software.
Unfortunately, I don't know how to make the
heartless, money-driven enterprise IT fall in love with a bunch of code, but it
would obviously be a more durable solution than punishing everyone (what about
other users?
) who doesn't give back.It all gives the statement "this is free software" such a hypocritical ring
to it, and that's probably the last thing you want if you're building a
community.
If your software is free, then everything you do with it must be a
free choice, regardless of the context you're using it in.tl;dr Forcing people to contribute to free software is
(oxy)moronic.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28168053</id>
	<title>Re:Of course they *should*...</title>
	<author>eots</author>
	<datestamp>1243871040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Companies that don't use any open source software are also employing people. So is McDonalds. What's your point? Employing someone is not "giving back".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Companies that do n't use any open source software are also employing people .
So is McDonalds .
What 's your point ?
Employing someone is not " giving back " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Companies that don't use any open source software are also employing people.
So is McDonalds.
What's your point?
Employing someone is not "giving back".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167345</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28168569</id>
	<title>Zero marginal cost</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1243873320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The "tragedy of the commons" does not apply.  There is no scarce resource here.  The cost to a Free Software developer of one more IT shop installing his software is <em>zero</em>.  Since a small fraction <em>do</em> contribute, each additional installation produces, on average, a net positive contribution.  There are no "leeches".  Everyone is welcome to use the software whether they can contribute or not.  The more the merrier.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The " tragedy of the commons " does not apply .
There is no scarce resource here .
The cost to a Free Software developer of one more IT shop installing his software is zero .
Since a small fraction do contribute , each additional installation produces , on average , a net positive contribution .
There are no " leeches " .
Everyone is welcome to use the software whether they can contribute or not .
The more the merrier .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The "tragedy of the commons" does not apply.
There is no scarce resource here.
The cost to a Free Software developer of one more IT shop installing his software is zero.
Since a small fraction do contribute, each additional installation produces, on average, a net positive contribution.
There are no "leeches".
Everyone is welcome to use the software whether they can contribute or not.
The more the merrier.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167743</id>
	<title>Re:Of course they *should*...</title>
	<author>EatHam</author>
	<datestamp>1243869840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>But many companies are too small to make a signifigant contribution.</p></div></blockquote><p>
And the ones that are large enough to can't get anything through accounting without a proper invoice, a company to pay it to, tax IDs, terms, and contracts.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But many companies are too small to make a signifigant contribution .
And the ones that are large enough to ca n't get anything through accounting without a proper invoice , a company to pay it to , tax IDs , terms , and contracts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But many companies are too small to make a signifigant contribution.
And the ones that are large enough to can't get anything through accounting without a proper invoice, a company to pay it to, tax IDs, terms, and contracts.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167075</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28168659</id>
	<title>To quote Scotty</title>
	<author>VGPowerlord</author>
	<datestamp>1243873740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"We cannae even do that in the 23rd century!" -- Scotty, Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" We cannae even do that in the 23rd century !
" -- Scotty , Star Trek IV : The Voyage Home</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"We cannae even do that in the 23rd century!
" -- Scotty, Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167345</id>
	<title>Re:Of course they *should*...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243868040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Small companies that use open source software are giving back by employing those who administer this software.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Small companies that use open source software are giving back by employing those who administer this software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Small companies that use open source software are giving back by employing those who administer this software.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167075</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28170587</id>
	<title>it can be real easy</title>
	<author>target562</author>
	<datestamp>1243882500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>
Contributing back to Open Source doesn't always mean "in code". In fact, most of the open-source coding I've done were of the local customizations variety -- nothing that you'd really want to release anyhow<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)

But "contributing back" can simply mean that when you hang out on various mailing lists for packages you use, you help out once and awhile. Have hints on performance tuning? Post a wiki page. Deploy some infrastructure you're proud of? Give a talk on it at a conference.

Many of these sorts of things don't fall under what most companies deem their "competitive advantage" -- and not to mention they get you contacts that can help you out of a bind when YOU need it, and are great recruiting tools...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Contributing back to Open Source does n't always mean " in code " .
In fact , most of the open-source coding I 've done were of the local customizations variety -- nothing that you 'd really want to release anyhow : ) But " contributing back " can simply mean that when you hang out on various mailing lists for packages you use , you help out once and awhile .
Have hints on performance tuning ?
Post a wiki page .
Deploy some infrastructure you 're proud of ?
Give a talk on it at a conference .
Many of these sorts of things do n't fall under what most companies deem their " competitive advantage " -- and not to mention they get you contacts that can help you out of a bind when YOU need it , and are great recruiting tools.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Contributing back to Open Source doesn't always mean "in code".
In fact, most of the open-source coding I've done were of the local customizations variety -- nothing that you'd really want to release anyhow :)

But "contributing back" can simply mean that when you hang out on various mailing lists for packages you use, you help out once and awhile.
Have hints on performance tuning?
Post a wiki page.
Deploy some infrastructure you're proud of?
Give a talk on it at a conference.
Many of these sorts of things don't fall under what most companies deem their "competitive advantage" -- and not to mention they get you contacts that can help you out of a bind when YOU need it, and are great recruiting tools...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28168823</id>
	<title>Re:Of course they *should*...</title>
	<author>Dr\_Barnowl</author>
	<datestamp>1243874520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All contributions are significant, code, documentation, etc. Even a good bug report or feature request is valuable.</p><p>If you've patched the software in a way that other would find useful it's also the smart thing to do. If you get your patch upstream, you no longer have to worry about managing the version control and custom builds of a component that you can now just download from the project site.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All contributions are significant , code , documentation , etc .
Even a good bug report or feature request is valuable.If you 've patched the software in a way that other would find useful it 's also the smart thing to do .
If you get your patch upstream , you no longer have to worry about managing the version control and custom builds of a component that you can now just download from the project site .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All contributions are significant, code, documentation, etc.
Even a good bug report or feature request is valuable.If you've patched the software in a way that other would find useful it's also the smart thing to do.
If you get your patch upstream, you no longer have to worry about managing the version control and custom builds of a component that you can now just download from the project site.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167075</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167379</id>
	<title>Re:But some software is more free than others</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243868220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>This is exactly what the little voice in the head of everyone who firmly believes in the GPL says: everyone who uses open source software must give back, because it was free. I think people should shut that voice up. Now.</i></p><p>If you firmly believe in the GPL, then all you want given back are changes made to the code.  If all you do is use the code, you have nothing to give back.  Bug reports are of course appreciated but not required.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is exactly what the little voice in the head of everyone who firmly believes in the GPL says : everyone who uses open source software must give back , because it was free .
I think people should shut that voice up .
Now.If you firmly believe in the GPL , then all you want given back are changes made to the code .
If all you do is use the code , you have nothing to give back .
Bug reports are of course appreciated but not required .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is exactly what the little voice in the head of everyone who firmly believes in the GPL says: everyone who uses open source software must give back, because it was free.
I think people should shut that voice up.
Now.If you firmly believe in the GPL, then all you want given back are changes made to the code.
If all you do is use the code, you have nothing to give back.
Bug reports are of course appreciated but not required.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167089</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167753</id>
	<title>Stay out of my source.</title>
	<author>BlueKitties</author>
	<datestamp>1243869900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The moment Microsoft or any other software giant has their filthy mitts inside of open source code, they're going to start pushing for ways to get $$$ out of the deal. I wouldn't be surprised to see a company like Microsoft starting a lawsuit, demanding a portion of an open source foundation's revenue (after all, they are making money off of service contracts supporting software Microsoft helped write.) Besides, what a better way to stave off a potential threat from Linux servers than to take it over legally?</htmltext>
<tokenext>The moment Microsoft or any other software giant has their filthy mitts inside of open source code , they 're going to start pushing for ways to get $ $ $ out of the deal .
I would n't be surprised to see a company like Microsoft starting a lawsuit , demanding a portion of an open source foundation 's revenue ( after all , they are making money off of service contracts supporting software Microsoft helped write .
) Besides , what a better way to stave off a potential threat from Linux servers than to take it over legally ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The moment Microsoft or any other software giant has their filthy mitts inside of open source code, they're going to start pushing for ways to get $$$ out of the deal.
I wouldn't be surprised to see a company like Microsoft starting a lawsuit, demanding a portion of an open source foundation's revenue (after all, they are making money off of service contracts supporting software Microsoft helped write.
) Besides, what a better way to stave off a potential threat from Linux servers than to take it over legally?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28170241</id>
	<title>Re:Speaking as an Enterprise user</title>
	<author>firewrought</author>
	<datestamp>1243880880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Trying to argue that the spirit of Open Source to recontribute to improve products, and that we've built our company upon that spirit and so we should contribute falls on deaf ears.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Have you tried coming up with a business case? Contributing back can have real benefits:
</p><ol>
<li>There is a cost savings with not having to reapply and re-test patches and bug fixes.</li><li>
Contributing a new feature means that other people can help flesh it out and better integrate it with other aspects of the project. It can also help avoid the situation where the project implements a competing version of the same feature (and now you have to port your code or be stuck on a dead end). Contributing helps shape the destiny of the product in a manner conducive to your company's strategy.
</li><li>
Healthy open source projects attract more stakeholders. More stakeholders means better community support, more features, and better  protection from obsolence. It's a virtuous circle, and your company can feed it by contributing.
</li><li>Maybe the contribution could be tax deductible?</li></ol><p>
You might also be able to make a "recommendation" to your management. Make a list of all possible contributions (grouping together minor bug fixes so that the list isn't overwhelming), and label each one as CONTRIBUTE or KEEP. KEEP items that (1) give your company a distinct competitive advantage, or (2) cannot be usefully contributed because they are highly specific to your setup. CONTRIBUTE items that would be better maintained by the community. Describe the criteria you used in coming up with this list, and earnestly try to make recommendations in line with your company's best interests.
</p><p>
Incidentally, it might have been a mistake asking permission to post code snippets. Snippets are an inherent part of professional discourse and participation, not a competitive advantage which needs protecting. It's naturally in your company's best interest that you interact with technical peers in this fashion. At least, that's how I would phrase it...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Trying to argue that the spirit of Open Source to recontribute to improve products , and that we 've built our company upon that spirit and so we should contribute falls on deaf ears .
Have you tried coming up with a business case ?
Contributing back can have real benefits : There is a cost savings with not having to reapply and re-test patches and bug fixes .
Contributing a new feature means that other people can help flesh it out and better integrate it with other aspects of the project .
It can also help avoid the situation where the project implements a competing version of the same feature ( and now you have to port your code or be stuck on a dead end ) .
Contributing helps shape the destiny of the product in a manner conducive to your company 's strategy .
Healthy open source projects attract more stakeholders .
More stakeholders means better community support , more features , and better protection from obsolence .
It 's a virtuous circle , and your company can feed it by contributing .
Maybe the contribution could be tax deductible ?
You might also be able to make a " recommendation " to your management .
Make a list of all possible contributions ( grouping together minor bug fixes so that the list is n't overwhelming ) , and label each one as CONTRIBUTE or KEEP .
KEEP items that ( 1 ) give your company a distinct competitive advantage , or ( 2 ) can not be usefully contributed because they are highly specific to your setup .
CONTRIBUTE items that would be better maintained by the community .
Describe the criteria you used in coming up with this list , and earnestly try to make recommendations in line with your company 's best interests .
Incidentally , it might have been a mistake asking permission to post code snippets .
Snippets are an inherent part of professional discourse and participation , not a competitive advantage which needs protecting .
It 's naturally in your company 's best interest that you interact with technical peers in this fashion .
At least , that 's how I would phrase it.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Trying to argue that the spirit of Open Source to recontribute to improve products, and that we've built our company upon that spirit and so we should contribute falls on deaf ears.
Have you tried coming up with a business case?
Contributing back can have real benefits:

There is a cost savings with not having to reapply and re-test patches and bug fixes.
Contributing a new feature means that other people can help flesh it out and better integrate it with other aspects of the project.
It can also help avoid the situation where the project implements a competing version of the same feature (and now you have to port your code or be stuck on a dead end).
Contributing helps shape the destiny of the product in a manner conducive to your company's strategy.
Healthy open source projects attract more stakeholders.
More stakeholders means better community support, more features, and better  protection from obsolence.
It's a virtuous circle, and your company can feed it by contributing.
Maybe the contribution could be tax deductible?
You might also be able to make a "recommendation" to your management.
Make a list of all possible contributions (grouping together minor bug fixes so that the list isn't overwhelming), and label each one as CONTRIBUTE or KEEP.
KEEP items that (1) give your company a distinct competitive advantage, or (2) cannot be usefully contributed because they are highly specific to your setup.
CONTRIBUTE items that would be better maintained by the community.
Describe the criteria you used in coming up with this list, and earnestly try to make recommendations in line with your company's best interests.
Incidentally, it might have been a mistake asking permission to post code snippets.
Snippets are an inherent part of professional discourse and participation, not a competitive advantage which needs protecting.
It's naturally in your company's best interest that you interact with technical peers in this fashion.
At least, that's how I would phrase it...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167225</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167935</id>
	<title>Do you have faith in GPL</title>
	<author>bethel</author>
	<datestamp>1243870560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I really don't see the point in this. Do you not have faith in GPL? When a company sinks in millions of dollars and builds an entire business model around an open source project, they have economic incentive to participate in development (whether they realised it or not). With their dollars at stake, they are the best people to figure out what enhancement / fixes are needed. If they have their own "private" features/fixes", every time a new release comes out, they run into compatibility issues. Once they go down that road, it is not that far fetch to start contributing the project and have what they want be part of the main branch of development. They might also just sit around and wait for the "community" to do their work, but with money on the line, they have to start adding or making changes to the software.</p><p>Even if you don't agree with me, writing angry letters or complaining is really not going get you any where. If you really want to police this, close source your code or your project.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I really do n't see the point in this .
Do you not have faith in GPL ?
When a company sinks in millions of dollars and builds an entire business model around an open source project , they have economic incentive to participate in development ( whether they realised it or not ) .
With their dollars at stake , they are the best people to figure out what enhancement / fixes are needed .
If they have their own " private " features/fixes " , every time a new release comes out , they run into compatibility issues .
Once they go down that road , it is not that far fetch to start contributing the project and have what they want be part of the main branch of development .
They might also just sit around and wait for the " community " to do their work , but with money on the line , they have to start adding or making changes to the software.Even if you do n't agree with me , writing angry letters or complaining is really not going get you any where .
If you really want to police this , close source your code or your project .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really don't see the point in this.
Do you not have faith in GPL?
When a company sinks in millions of dollars and builds an entire business model around an open source project, they have economic incentive to participate in development (whether they realised it or not).
With their dollars at stake, they are the best people to figure out what enhancement / fixes are needed.
If they have their own "private" features/fixes", every time a new release comes out, they run into compatibility issues.
Once they go down that road, it is not that far fetch to start contributing the project and have what they want be part of the main branch of development.
They might also just sit around and wait for the "community" to do their work, but with money on the line, they have to start adding or making changes to the software.Even if you don't agree with me, writing angry letters or complaining is really not going get you any where.
If you really want to police this, close source your code or your project.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28169623</id>
	<title>I don't think you get it...</title>
	<author>Qubit</author>
	<datestamp>1243877820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>others view the notion of 'freeloaders' as a relic of open source's Wild West era, when coding was a higher calling and free software a religion</p></div><p>I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth, but the way you paint it, "Open Source" is the whiny, shallow little brother of Free Software.
</p><p>Maybe just using Open Source software gets your rocks off, and that's fine with me, but the primary reasons that I use and hack on Free Software is that *gasp* I <em>believe</em> in the idea. I make enough money at my job that I could go down and buy a tricked out machine, put Windows Super Awesome Spy Edition on it, load it up with Adobe Creative Juggernaut and even sprinkle some Maya on top. Sure. But I don't find that interesting or desirable.
</p><p>If one of my friends comes to me and says "Hey, how can I do \_\_\_\_ on my computer?", then I like to (1) Find Free Software for them to do the job, and (2) Tell them a bit about how to do the job and/or what the computer is doing. I'm an engineer. I like to know how things work, and I like to teach other people how things work. It's empowering.
</p><p>If I could wave my hands and make things happen, then I'd have a really tasty lunch in front of me right now. More importantly, I'd give everyone hardware and software that they could use and modify; I'd make sure everyone had access to tools that they could extend to do things that I haven't even dreamed up yet. <em>That's</em> what I like about Free Software. <em>That's</em> why I do what I do.
</p><p>Are there companies out there reaping the benefits of Free and Open Source Software and not contributing code and money back to the community? Yes -- it's a simple fact. But I don't think that people should get too worked up about it when companies are abiding by the terms of the license. The reason we have GPLv3 and AGPLv3 is that those Free Software licenses are more precise in describing to companies how they may use the software and are more protective of developers and users of the code. One common concern, that of people using code as a hosted service and not contributing code back to the community, is now trivial to avoid by simply using the AGPL.
</p><p>In the end it's all about education. If more companies (read: more management at companies) understand the benefits of Free and Open Source Software and are properly educated about how they can contribute to the community without sinking themselves financially, then I think this problem will resolve itself. </p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>others view the notion of 'freeloaders ' as a relic of open source 's Wild West era , when coding was a higher calling and free software a religionI do n't want to put words in anyone 's mouth , but the way you paint it , " Open Source " is the whiny , shallow little brother of Free Software .
Maybe just using Open Source software gets your rocks off , and that 's fine with me , but the primary reasons that I use and hack on Free Software is that * gasp * I believe in the idea .
I make enough money at my job that I could go down and buy a tricked out machine , put Windows Super Awesome Spy Edition on it , load it up with Adobe Creative Juggernaut and even sprinkle some Maya on top .
Sure. But I do n't find that interesting or desirable .
If one of my friends comes to me and says " Hey , how can I do \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ on my computer ?
" , then I like to ( 1 ) Find Free Software for them to do the job , and ( 2 ) Tell them a bit about how to do the job and/or what the computer is doing .
I 'm an engineer .
I like to know how things work , and I like to teach other people how things work .
It 's empowering .
If I could wave my hands and make things happen , then I 'd have a really tasty lunch in front of me right now .
More importantly , I 'd give everyone hardware and software that they could use and modify ; I 'd make sure everyone had access to tools that they could extend to do things that I have n't even dreamed up yet .
That 's what I like about Free Software .
That 's why I do what I do .
Are there companies out there reaping the benefits of Free and Open Source Software and not contributing code and money back to the community ?
Yes -- it 's a simple fact .
But I do n't think that people should get too worked up about it when companies are abiding by the terms of the license .
The reason we have GPLv3 and AGPLv3 is that those Free Software licenses are more precise in describing to companies how they may use the software and are more protective of developers and users of the code .
One common concern , that of people using code as a hosted service and not contributing code back to the community , is now trivial to avoid by simply using the AGPL .
In the end it 's all about education .
If more companies ( read : more management at companies ) understand the benefits of Free and Open Source Software and are properly educated about how they can contribute to the community without sinking themselves financially , then I think this problem will resolve itself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>others view the notion of 'freeloaders' as a relic of open source's Wild West era, when coding was a higher calling and free software a religionI don't want to put words in anyone's mouth, but the way you paint it, "Open Source" is the whiny, shallow little brother of Free Software.
Maybe just using Open Source software gets your rocks off, and that's fine with me, but the primary reasons that I use and hack on Free Software is that *gasp* I believe in the idea.
I make enough money at my job that I could go down and buy a tricked out machine, put Windows Super Awesome Spy Edition on it, load it up with Adobe Creative Juggernaut and even sprinkle some Maya on top.
Sure. But I don't find that interesting or desirable.
If one of my friends comes to me and says "Hey, how can I do \_\_\_\_ on my computer?
", then I like to (1) Find Free Software for them to do the job, and (2) Tell them a bit about how to do the job and/or what the computer is doing.
I'm an engineer.
I like to know how things work, and I like to teach other people how things work.
It's empowering.
If I could wave my hands and make things happen, then I'd have a really tasty lunch in front of me right now.
More importantly, I'd give everyone hardware and software that they could use and modify; I'd make sure everyone had access to tools that they could extend to do things that I haven't even dreamed up yet.
That's what I like about Free Software.
That's why I do what I do.
Are there companies out there reaping the benefits of Free and Open Source Software and not contributing code and money back to the community?
Yes -- it's a simple fact.
But I don't think that people should get too worked up about it when companies are abiding by the terms of the license.
The reason we have GPLv3 and AGPLv3 is that those Free Software licenses are more precise in describing to companies how they may use the software and are more protective of developers and users of the code.
One common concern, that of people using code as a hosted service and not contributing code back to the community, is now trivial to avoid by simply using the AGPL.
In the end it's all about education.
If more companies (read: more management at companies) understand the benefits of Free and Open Source Software and are properly educated about how they can contribute to the community without sinking themselves financially, then I think this problem will resolve itself. 
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28168177</id>
	<title>Re:Of course they *should*...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243871700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Due to corporate laibility and the assumed role of suport, many for profit corporations don't wish the exposuer for legal and ecconomic reasons.</p><p>On the plus side, many in the IT department are free to contribute on a personal level and therefore do not place liability issues on the corporation.</p><p>Where do you think these trained coders come from.  Most have a job somewhere to pay the bills.</p><p>I think the issue raised is simply a red herring and not an issue at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Due to corporate laibility and the assumed role of suport , many for profit corporations do n't wish the exposuer for legal and ecconomic reasons.On the plus side , many in the IT department are free to contribute on a personal level and therefore do not place liability issues on the corporation.Where do you think these trained coders come from .
Most have a job somewhere to pay the bills.I think the issue raised is simply a red herring and not an issue at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Due to corporate laibility and the assumed role of suport, many for profit corporations don't wish the exposuer for legal and ecconomic reasons.On the plus side, many in the IT department are free to contribute on a personal level and therefore do not place liability issues on the corporation.Where do you think these trained coders come from.
Most have a job somewhere to pay the bills.I think the issue raised is simply a red herring and not an issue at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167075</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28175183</id>
	<title>Re:Of course they *should*...</title>
	<author>mrmeval</author>
	<datestamp>1243857240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All I want them to contribute back is code. They are businesses, they employ people. I'm happy with that. I personally do contribute money to developers as I can for what I use. I have done some hideous code and contributed it when there was no one else to do it (no don't ask to see it you'll go blind). Using the software gives no right to demand compensation. At least in the US do have the right to troll, whine and mewl about it but it is demeaning.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All I want them to contribute back is code .
They are businesses , they employ people .
I 'm happy with that .
I personally do contribute money to developers as I can for what I use .
I have done some hideous code and contributed it when there was no one else to do it ( no do n't ask to see it you 'll go blind ) .
Using the software gives no right to demand compensation .
At least in the US do have the right to troll , whine and mewl about it but it is demeaning .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All I want them to contribute back is code.
They are businesses, they employ people.
I'm happy with that.
I personally do contribute money to developers as I can for what I use.
I have done some hideous code and contributed it when there was no one else to do it (no don't ask to see it you'll go blind).
Using the software gives no right to demand compensation.
At least in the US do have the right to troll, whine and mewl about it but it is demeaning.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167075</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167173</id>
	<title>Call me an idiot but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243867260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>...I once quite a job over this exact problem.  Managers at my old company constantly claimed "cost savings and ROI" by using these "new software tools" but didn't dare mention they were FOSS tools for fear of ridicule by the "CTO and CIO" folks who get their "tech news" from trade rags.  Then, once I wrote a neat tool for file synchronization over several Linux boxen I asked to open it up because I needed help and also because I knew others in the community would benefit; and yes I was saving the company money.  They said "No." and I said, "OK, I'm out."  They offered more money and I said "I'm still out."  Granted most folks on Slashdot will think I'm an idiot and not "American" or a "Capitalist" for doing such a thing but I sincerely believe folks need to start doing what I did in order to get it through the management brain that "without our code, you have no cost advantage over the competition."  Now, unleash the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. ridicule hounds...</htmltext>
<tokenext>...I once quite a job over this exact problem .
Managers at my old company constantly claimed " cost savings and ROI " by using these " new software tools " but did n't dare mention they were FOSS tools for fear of ridicule by the " CTO and CIO " folks who get their " tech news " from trade rags .
Then , once I wrote a neat tool for file synchronization over several Linux boxen I asked to open it up because I needed help and also because I knew others in the community would benefit ; and yes I was saving the company money .
They said " No .
" and I said , " OK , I 'm out .
" They offered more money and I said " I 'm still out .
" Granted most folks on Slashdot will think I 'm an idiot and not " American " or a " Capitalist " for doing such a thing but I sincerely believe folks need to start doing what I did in order to get it through the management brain that " without our code , you have no cost advantage over the competition .
" Now , unleash the / .
ridicule hounds.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...I once quite a job over this exact problem.
Managers at my old company constantly claimed "cost savings and ROI" by using these "new software tools" but didn't dare mention they were FOSS tools for fear of ridicule by the "CTO and CIO" folks who get their "tech news" from trade rags.
Then, once I wrote a neat tool for file synchronization over several Linux boxen I asked to open it up because I needed help and also because I knew others in the community would benefit; and yes I was saving the company money.
They said "No.
" and I said, "OK, I'm out.
"  They offered more money and I said "I'm still out.
"  Granted most folks on Slashdot will think I'm an idiot and not "American" or a "Capitalist" for doing such a thing but I sincerely believe folks need to start doing what I did in order to get it through the management brain that "without our code, you have no cost advantage over the competition.
"  Now, unleash the /.
ridicule hounds...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28172543</id>
	<title>Whiners</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243889880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Open Source should STFU and get busy designing a decent desktop interface or unified graphics API for Linux and stop wasting time bitching who is or is not contributing to "free" software.....or start charging for it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Open Source should STFU and get busy designing a decent desktop interface or unified graphics API for Linux and stop wasting time bitching who is or is not contributing to " free " software.....or start charging for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Open Source should STFU and get busy designing a decent desktop interface or unified graphics API for Linux and stop wasting time bitching who is or is not contributing to "free" software.....or start charging for it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167289</id>
	<title>Re:Just To Be Clear...</title>
	<author>Virak</author>
	<datestamp>1243867740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, you don't seem to be very clear on this. While I don't agree with these complaints, you are blatantly wrong on three counts. First, it is not the community as a whole, it is a subset of it, and a tiny one at that. Second, free as in speech, not as in beer. Third, they aren't asking for "compensation".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , you do n't seem to be very clear on this .
While I do n't agree with these complaints , you are blatantly wrong on three counts .
First , it is not the community as a whole , it is a subset of it , and a tiny one at that .
Second , free as in speech , not as in beer .
Third , they are n't asking for " compensation " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, you don't seem to be very clear on this.
While I don't agree with these complaints, you are blatantly wrong on three counts.
First, it is not the community as a whole, it is a subset of it, and a tiny one at that.
Second, free as in speech, not as in beer.
Third, they aren't asking for "compensation".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167087</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28168359</id>
	<title>Re:But some software is more free than others</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243872360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The problem of freeloaders is approached here with sticks. [...] Instead, try the carrots approach. Make users fall in love with your project, so they actually want to give back to the software.</p></div></blockquote><p>A freeloader is someone who puts a load on things; using free software doesn't burden the author. Since no load is being put on anyone, there is no giving <i>back</i>, but simply giving. This is a big point of free software, that it costs virtually nothing to allow everyone to use the software freely, so artificially restricting this is just wasting a free resource. Personally I feel that others using free software I write is a gift <i>to</i> me, as it gives me an audience and thus feedback and motivation to improve my software creation skills.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem of freeloaders is approached here with sticks .
[ ... ] Instead , try the carrots approach .
Make users fall in love with your project , so they actually want to give back to the software.A freeloader is someone who puts a load on things ; using free software does n't burden the author .
Since no load is being put on anyone , there is no giving back , but simply giving .
This is a big point of free software , that it costs virtually nothing to allow everyone to use the software freely , so artificially restricting this is just wasting a free resource .
Personally I feel that others using free software I write is a gift to me , as it gives me an audience and thus feedback and motivation to improve my software creation skills .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem of freeloaders is approached here with sticks.
[...] Instead, try the carrots approach.
Make users fall in love with your project, so they actually want to give back to the software.A freeloader is someone who puts a load on things; using free software doesn't burden the author.
Since no load is being put on anyone, there is no giving back, but simply giving.
This is a big point of free software, that it costs virtually nothing to allow everyone to use the software freely, so artificially restricting this is just wasting a free resource.
Personally I feel that others using free software I write is a gift to me, as it gives me an audience and thus feedback and motivation to improve my software creation skills.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167089</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28169727</id>
	<title>Re:Just To Be Clear...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243878240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Take the case of the FSF which is a charity.<br>So GNU software could be considered "software welfare". Surely you have heard of the term "welfare bums"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Take the case of the FSF which is a charity.So GNU software could be considered " software welfare " .
Surely you have heard of the term " welfare bums " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Take the case of the FSF which is a charity.So GNU software could be considered "software welfare".
Surely you have heard of the term "welfare bums"?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167087</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167093</id>
	<title>But</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243866960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's not in their requirements to give something back to the OS-community.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not in their requirements to give something back to the OS-community .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not in their requirements to give something back to the OS-community.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28179009</id>
	<title>Collaborate</title>
	<author>Yfrwlf</author>
	<datestamp>1243935180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There needs to be more of this.  Businesses who all want the same feature to be added to some open source software need to get together and share the expense.  A million times cheaper than closed source software, it simply requires communication.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There needs to be more of this .
Businesses who all want the same feature to be added to some open source software need to get together and share the expense .
A million times cheaper than closed source software , it simply requires communication .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There needs to be more of this.
Businesses who all want the same feature to be added to some open source software need to get together and share the expense.
A million times cheaper than closed source software, it simply requires communication.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28170715</id>
	<title>The BLOB</title>
	<author>MarkvW</author>
	<datestamp>1243883340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Parent is one of the few things worth reading on this silly thread.</p><p>A copyright license that requires the performance of work is not free.  It's not libre and it's not gratis.  It's you making somebody do something in exchange for the use of your copyright.  There is no distinction in this context between requiring the exchange of money and requiring the exchange of work.</p><p>FOSS will never penetrate a business that derives competitive advantage from software development unless somebody outside the business destroys that competitive advantage with a superior FOSS product.  A corollary of this applies to businesses who mistakenly think that they derive a competitive advantage from software development.</p><p>FOSS is like the Blob, though (most of the time).  When the blob gets big enough, it destroys the salability of the for-profit software software it encompasses.  You can't expect people to quit making money (or to quit thinking that they are making money) from private software until they are swallowed by the blob.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Parent is one of the few things worth reading on this silly thread.A copyright license that requires the performance of work is not free .
It 's not libre and it 's not gratis .
It 's you making somebody do something in exchange for the use of your copyright .
There is no distinction in this context between requiring the exchange of money and requiring the exchange of work.FOSS will never penetrate a business that derives competitive advantage from software development unless somebody outside the business destroys that competitive advantage with a superior FOSS product .
A corollary of this applies to businesses who mistakenly think that they derive a competitive advantage from software development.FOSS is like the Blob , though ( most of the time ) .
When the blob gets big enough , it destroys the salability of the for-profit software software it encompasses .
You ca n't expect people to quit making money ( or to quit thinking that they are making money ) from private software until they are swallowed by the blob .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Parent is one of the few things worth reading on this silly thread.A copyright license that requires the performance of work is not free.
It's not libre and it's not gratis.
It's you making somebody do something in exchange for the use of your copyright.
There is no distinction in this context between requiring the exchange of money and requiring the exchange of work.FOSS will never penetrate a business that derives competitive advantage from software development unless somebody outside the business destroys that competitive advantage with a superior FOSS product.
A corollary of this applies to businesses who mistakenly think that they derive a competitive advantage from software development.FOSS is like the Blob, though (most of the time).
When the blob gets big enough, it destroys the salability of the for-profit software software it encompasses.
You can't expect people to quit making money (or to quit thinking that they are making money) from private software until they are swallowed by the blob.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28169503</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28168095</id>
	<title>I pushed for this</title>
	<author>TheGreatOrangePeel</author>
	<datestamp>1243871280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Before I got laid off, err, "participated in a workforce reduction" from Accenture, I pushed, multiple times, to have people who are 'benched' to use their downtime to contribute back to the Open Source projects that Accenture and their clients use (Hibernate is a fantastic example). Despite having a great points as to why this was a good idea and some good backing from both peers and my so-called "higher ups," no one was ready to approve this kind of use of bench time. I guess real experience and good corporate karma are no substitute for SkillSoft training.</p><p>Granted I'm being very cynical, but there has to be a reason why this doesn't make good business sense even for people who are basically getting paid to do next to nothing (benched folk). Can anyone provide insight as to why?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Before I got laid off , err , " participated in a workforce reduction " from Accenture , I pushed , multiple times , to have people who are 'benched ' to use their downtime to contribute back to the Open Source projects that Accenture and their clients use ( Hibernate is a fantastic example ) .
Despite having a great points as to why this was a good idea and some good backing from both peers and my so-called " higher ups , " no one was ready to approve this kind of use of bench time .
I guess real experience and good corporate karma are no substitute for SkillSoft training.Granted I 'm being very cynical , but there has to be a reason why this does n't make good business sense even for people who are basically getting paid to do next to nothing ( benched folk ) .
Can anyone provide insight as to why ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Before I got laid off, err, "participated in a workforce reduction" from Accenture, I pushed, multiple times, to have people who are 'benched' to use their downtime to contribute back to the Open Source projects that Accenture and their clients use (Hibernate is a fantastic example).
Despite having a great points as to why this was a good idea and some good backing from both peers and my so-called "higher ups," no one was ready to approve this kind of use of bench time.
I guess real experience and good corporate karma are no substitute for SkillSoft training.Granted I'm being very cynical, but there has to be a reason why this doesn't make good business sense even for people who are basically getting paid to do next to nothing (benched folk).
Can anyone provide insight as to why?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28168025</id>
	<title>Re:No, they should not</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1243870980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a free software[1] developer, I don't care who uses my code without giving anything back, but they shouldn't expect anything from me beyond a tarball.  If someone provides helpful bug reports, then we both benefit from improved software by my spending some time addressing them.  If someone submits a patch that is useful to more than one person, we both benefit if I review and commit it.  </p><p>
Someone who uses my code and gives nothing back is just irrelevant to me.  If it helps them, then that's great for them, and I'm pleased that it's saved them the effort of reimplementing my work, but beyond that I just don't care.  </p><p>
Community is important.  Communities form because it benefits the members more to be part of them than to be entirely independent individuals.  If you don't want to join a community, you can still get some of the benefits from its existence, but not all of them.
</p><p>
[1] I prefer the term Hippyware - it's more expressive and less confusing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a free software [ 1 ] developer , I do n't care who uses my code without giving anything back , but they should n't expect anything from me beyond a tarball .
If someone provides helpful bug reports , then we both benefit from improved software by my spending some time addressing them .
If someone submits a patch that is useful to more than one person , we both benefit if I review and commit it .
Someone who uses my code and gives nothing back is just irrelevant to me .
If it helps them , then that 's great for them , and I 'm pleased that it 's saved them the effort of reimplementing my work , but beyond that I just do n't care .
Community is important .
Communities form because it benefits the members more to be part of them than to be entirely independent individuals .
If you do n't want to join a community , you can still get some of the benefits from its existence , but not all of them .
[ 1 ] I prefer the term Hippyware - it 's more expressive and less confusing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a free software[1] developer, I don't care who uses my code without giving anything back, but they shouldn't expect anything from me beyond a tarball.
If someone provides helpful bug reports, then we both benefit from improved software by my spending some time addressing them.
If someone submits a patch that is useful to more than one person, we both benefit if I review and commit it.
Someone who uses my code and gives nothing back is just irrelevant to me.
If it helps them, then that's great for them, and I'm pleased that it's saved them the effort of reimplementing my work, but beyond that I just don't care.
Community is important.
Communities form because it benefits the members more to be part of them than to be entirely independent individuals.
If you don't want to join a community, you can still get some of the benefits from its existence, but not all of them.
[1] I prefer the term Hippyware - it's more expressive and less confusing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167091</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28170863</id>
	<title>solution</title>
	<author>someone1234</author>
	<datestamp>1243883940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1. company A uses (as in download, improve, release source) GPL software<br>2. company B steals it (as in download, improve, sell binary)<br>3. first company sues second company<br>4. profit</p><p>no ???</p><p>After a few iterations, it will be fine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1. company A uses ( as in download , improve , release source ) GPL software2 .
company B steals it ( as in download , improve , sell binary ) 3. first company sues second company4 .
profitno ? ?
? After a few iterations , it will be fine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1. company A uses (as in download, improve, release source) GPL software2.
company B steals it (as in download, improve, sell binary)3. first company sues second company4.
profitno ??
?After a few iterations, it will be fine.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167659</id>
	<title>They *should*, not *have to*</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243869420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If someone helps you with some problem, you should help them if they need it in the future.</p><p>But they don't *have* to.</p><p>Same here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If someone helps you with some problem , you should help them if they need it in the future.But they do n't * have * to.Same here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If someone helps you with some problem, you should help them if they need it in the future.But they don't *have* to.Same here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167091</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28169973</id>
	<title>Re:Call me an idiot but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243879500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is at least partly due to a lack of understanding.  the departure of a valued contributor may actually raise the dialogue to a level where people gain some understanding of what it means to use and contribute to Open Source.  That would be cool if it means you did not quit your job in vain.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is at least partly due to a lack of understanding .
the departure of a valued contributor may actually raise the dialogue to a level where people gain some understanding of what it means to use and contribute to Open Source .
That would be cool if it means you did not quit your job in vain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is at least partly due to a lack of understanding.
the departure of a valued contributor may actually raise the dialogue to a level where people gain some understanding of what it means to use and contribute to Open Source.
That would be cool if it means you did not quit your job in vain.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167173</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167121</id>
	<title>No they shouldn't...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243867020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>There should be no compulsion to contribute, as the freedom to choose to contribute or not *must* be one of the fundamental freedoms in Open Source.<br> <br>

Think of their usage as advertising...</htmltext>
<tokenext>There should be no compulsion to contribute , as the freedom to choose to contribute or not * must * be one of the fundamental freedoms in Open Source .
Think of their usage as advertising.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There should be no compulsion to contribute, as the freedom to choose to contribute or not *must* be one of the fundamental freedoms in Open Source.
Think of their usage as advertising...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167815</id>
	<title>Re:Call me an idiot but...</title>
	<author>StylusEater</author>
	<datestamp>1243870140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Well, to put it simply you are not very smart."</p><p>

<tt>I beg to differ.  I know my worth in the market place and know there are many other opportunities out there with managers who actually "get it."  Why have a false sense of loyalty to a company who won't work with you even after many lengthy discussions.  Money isn't everything to me and I'm sure it's not to many others.</tt>

</p><p>"Obviously in your contract it states that every code (or anything for that matter) that you created in the company was IP for the company but nothing prevented you from taking the idea to a next level say have the process well defined and work with the community to develop it."</p><p>

<tt>There actually wasn't anything in my contract that said such a thing about "code."  I also didn't have a contract.  By law if I did that would expose the company to many many other issues.  Most US companies are "at-will" and don't give their employees contracts because it makes hiring and more importantly, firing, much more difficult in the US court system.</tt>

</p><p>"I beleve we must stand for what we believe when what's being asked from us goes against it or to harm it but as far as I can tell you just acted like a snotty kid who had his precious toy taken away."</p><p>

<tt>I'm glad we agree about standing up for what we believe in but I didn't have my "toy" taken from me.  I simply asked to publish the code and setup a way to discuss the project/process and code base with the greater community.  They thought they could throw money at me; now who's childish?</tt>

</p><p>"Congratulations on losing a job based on that."</p><p>

<tt>Ahem, I didn't lose the job.  I quit.  There is a huge difference.</tt></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Well , to put it simply you are not very smart .
" I beg to differ .
I know my worth in the market place and know there are many other opportunities out there with managers who actually " get it .
" Why have a false sense of loyalty to a company who wo n't work with you even after many lengthy discussions .
Money is n't everything to me and I 'm sure it 's not to many others .
" Obviously in your contract it states that every code ( or anything for that matter ) that you created in the company was IP for the company but nothing prevented you from taking the idea to a next level say have the process well defined and work with the community to develop it .
" There actually was n't anything in my contract that said such a thing about " code .
" I also did n't have a contract .
By law if I did that would expose the company to many many other issues .
Most US companies are " at-will " and do n't give their employees contracts because it makes hiring and more importantly , firing , much more difficult in the US court system .
" I beleve we must stand for what we believe when what 's being asked from us goes against it or to harm it but as far as I can tell you just acted like a snotty kid who had his precious toy taken away .
" I 'm glad we agree about standing up for what we believe in but I did n't have my " toy " taken from me .
I simply asked to publish the code and setup a way to discuss the project/process and code base with the greater community .
They thought they could throw money at me ; now who 's childish ?
" Congratulations on losing a job based on that .
" Ahem , I did n't lose the job .
I quit .
There is a huge difference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Well, to put it simply you are not very smart.
"

I beg to differ.
I know my worth in the market place and know there are many other opportunities out there with managers who actually "get it.
"  Why have a false sense of loyalty to a company who won't work with you even after many lengthy discussions.
Money isn't everything to me and I'm sure it's not to many others.
"Obviously in your contract it states that every code (or anything for that matter) that you created in the company was IP for the company but nothing prevented you from taking the idea to a next level say have the process well defined and work with the community to develop it.
"

There actually wasn't anything in my contract that said such a thing about "code.
"  I also didn't have a contract.
By law if I did that would expose the company to many many other issues.
Most US companies are "at-will" and don't give their employees contracts because it makes hiring and more importantly, firing, much more difficult in the US court system.
"I beleve we must stand for what we believe when what's being asked from us goes against it or to harm it but as far as I can tell you just acted like a snotty kid who had his precious toy taken away.
"

I'm glad we agree about standing up for what we believe in but I didn't have my "toy" taken from me.
I simply asked to publish the code and setup a way to discuss the project/process and code base with the greater community.
They thought they could throw money at me; now who's childish?
"Congratulations on losing a job based on that.
"

Ahem, I didn't lose the job.
I quit.
There is a huge difference.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167487</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28168289</id>
	<title>I give back</title>
	<author>Archangel Michael</author>
	<datestamp>1243872060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I give back. I support, test, evangelize, promote, install, use, help others use FOSS.</p><p>I use FOSS because it is FREE (Libre AND Gratis). Because of Linux (and other FOSS), I've helped change the minds of many people to the benefits of FOSS.</p><p>Just recently, My Father-in-law had to reset his laptop (unfortunately XP) and had to re-install Adobe CS Suite. Well Adobe said he had too many installs already, and to call in. He called in, and they said "We don't support that version any longer".</p><p>We all know to expect this behavior, but this was completely the last straw for my FIL, and he told the support person he will never use Adobe ever again.</p><p>After I put in a Linux Server for him (Document Backup), and he saw how well it worked, he asked if Linux would work on his laptop.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-D</p><p>So, we take Linux to one person at a time. We all work towards this.</p><p>And while it may not look like we are making much progress, we are. I can recall back in the early days of Linux, how much of a "joke" it was. Well, slowly and surely it is starting to make real impact into the world.</p><p>That impact is not because of corporate support for FOSS, it is because FOSS is being worked into corporate, just like when PC's started to sneak into corporate 35 years ago.</p><p>One day, corporate is going to wake up and realize that FOSS is in the workplace, because the tools they have provided are not sufficient.</p><p>Then<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... you win.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I give back .
I support , test , evangelize , promote , install , use , help others use FOSS.I use FOSS because it is FREE ( Libre AND Gratis ) .
Because of Linux ( and other FOSS ) , I 've helped change the minds of many people to the benefits of FOSS.Just recently , My Father-in-law had to reset his laptop ( unfortunately XP ) and had to re-install Adobe CS Suite .
Well Adobe said he had too many installs already , and to call in .
He called in , and they said " We do n't support that version any longer " .We all know to expect this behavior , but this was completely the last straw for my FIL , and he told the support person he will never use Adobe ever again.After I put in a Linux Server for him ( Document Backup ) , and he saw how well it worked , he asked if Linux would work on his laptop .
: -DSo , we take Linux to one person at a time .
We all work towards this.And while it may not look like we are making much progress , we are .
I can recall back in the early days of Linux , how much of a " joke " it was .
Well , slowly and surely it is starting to make real impact into the world.That impact is not because of corporate support for FOSS , it is because FOSS is being worked into corporate , just like when PC 's started to sneak into corporate 35 years ago.One day , corporate is going to wake up and realize that FOSS is in the workplace , because the tools they have provided are not sufficient.Then ... you win .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I give back.
I support, test, evangelize, promote, install, use, help others use FOSS.I use FOSS because it is FREE (Libre AND Gratis).
Because of Linux (and other FOSS), I've helped change the minds of many people to the benefits of FOSS.Just recently, My Father-in-law had to reset his laptop (unfortunately XP) and had to re-install Adobe CS Suite.
Well Adobe said he had too many installs already, and to call in.
He called in, and they said "We don't support that version any longer".We all know to expect this behavior, but this was completely the last straw for my FIL, and he told the support person he will never use Adobe ever again.After I put in a Linux Server for him (Document Backup), and he saw how well it worked, he asked if Linux would work on his laptop.
:-DSo, we take Linux to one person at a time.
We all work towards this.And while it may not look like we are making much progress, we are.
I can recall back in the early days of Linux, how much of a "joke" it was.
Well, slowly and surely it is starting to make real impact into the world.That impact is not because of corporate support for FOSS, it is because FOSS is being worked into corporate, just like when PC's started to sneak into corporate 35 years ago.One day, corporate is going to wake up and realize that FOSS is in the workplace, because the tools they have provided are not sufficient.Then ... you win.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167075</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167643</id>
	<title>Should - if they want to</title>
	<author>Just Some Guy</author>
	<datestamp>1243869360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have a <a href="http://pgdbf.sourceforge.net/" title="sourceforge.net">small GPL project</a> [sourceforge.net] that's fairly popular in certain circles, but I didn't write it to be popular.  I wrote it because it met a need that my company had.  Whether no people or a million use it, we'll get the same financial compensation: zero.  But again, that's not why we released it!  We <em>have</em> gotten back bug reports and enhancement requests that prompted me to make changes we never would have thought of on our own, and those changes have been useful to us.  Isn't that compensation enough?  It is for me and my boss.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a small GPL project [ sourceforge.net ] that 's fairly popular in certain circles , but I did n't write it to be popular .
I wrote it because it met a need that my company had .
Whether no people or a million use it , we 'll get the same financial compensation : zero .
But again , that 's not why we released it !
We have gotten back bug reports and enhancement requests that prompted me to make changes we never would have thought of on our own , and those changes have been useful to us .
Is n't that compensation enough ?
It is for me and my boss .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a small GPL project [sourceforge.net] that's fairly popular in certain circles, but I didn't write it to be popular.
I wrote it because it met a need that my company had.
Whether no people or a million use it, we'll get the same financial compensation: zero.
But again, that's not why we released it!
We have gotten back bug reports and enhancement requests that prompted me to make changes we never would have thought of on our own, and those changes have been useful to us.
Isn't that compensation enough?
It is for me and my boss.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28168781</id>
	<title>Re:Just To Be Clear...</title>
	<author>jollyreaper</author>
	<datestamp>1243874280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The Free Open Source Software community, that builds free, open source software, is complaining that they are not, in one way or another, being another compensated for their free software?</p></div><p>Compensation should be free, as in love. Send some marketing babes over.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Free Open Source Software community , that builds free , open source software , is complaining that they are not , in one way or another , being another compensated for their free software ? Compensation should be free , as in love .
Send some marketing babes over .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Free Open Source Software community, that builds free, open source software, is complaining that they are not, in one way or another, being another compensated for their free software?Compensation should be free, as in love.
Send some marketing babes over.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167087</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28171933</id>
	<title>Should US, EU, RU... Gov/Mil pay...?</title>
	<author>OldHawk777</author>
	<datestamp>1243887600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Governments, Militaries, Private/Public foundations/schools are large consumers of OSS products.</p><p>It would be smart of them to pay an annual help-desk code-dev assistance subscription fee to Linux, GNU, Redhat, Ubuntu, Apache, GIMP, Snort, OpenOffice....</p><p>If you have a convergence project, bringing many OSS products and code-complexity together, then the "Open Source" developers are the very best source to have available... as you go from scratch to web-services....</p><p>I mean OSS (Free!) code is great; However, avoidable project/product failure or problematic costly lifecycle is not acceptable, because the best support is available, but first you pay for support services.</p><p>Some projects can cost $17M with short lifecycle proprietary applications, and one-of-a-kind data/content format-hooks. Maybe trying to do the same with OSS support services for $7M will achieve long lifecyle ROI/value and assure ownership of your data/content. Two ways to go and either can be a big waste of money, both can be a success, but (I think) only OSS will deliver affordable lifecycle ROI and let me retain usable no/low format-conversion-cost data/content.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Governments , Militaries , Private/Public foundations/schools are large consumers of OSS products.It would be smart of them to pay an annual help-desk code-dev assistance subscription fee to Linux , GNU , Redhat , Ubuntu , Apache , GIMP , Snort , OpenOffice....If you have a convergence project , bringing many OSS products and code-complexity together , then the " Open Source " developers are the very best source to have available... as you go from scratch to web-services....I mean OSS ( Free !
) code is great ; However , avoidable project/product failure or problematic costly lifecycle is not acceptable , because the best support is available , but first you pay for support services.Some projects can cost $ 17M with short lifecycle proprietary applications , and one-of-a-kind data/content format-hooks .
Maybe trying to do the same with OSS support services for $ 7M will achieve long lifecyle ROI/value and assure ownership of your data/content .
Two ways to go and either can be a big waste of money , both can be a success , but ( I think ) only OSS will deliver affordable lifecycle ROI and let me retain usable no/low format-conversion-cost data/content .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Governments, Militaries, Private/Public foundations/schools are large consumers of OSS products.It would be smart of them to pay an annual help-desk code-dev assistance subscription fee to Linux, GNU, Redhat, Ubuntu, Apache, GIMP, Snort, OpenOffice....If you have a convergence project, bringing many OSS products and code-complexity together, then the "Open Source" developers are the very best source to have available... as you go from scratch to web-services....I mean OSS (Free!
) code is great; However, avoidable project/product failure or problematic costly lifecycle is not acceptable, because the best support is available, but first you pay for support services.Some projects can cost $17M with short lifecycle proprietary applications, and one-of-a-kind data/content format-hooks.
Maybe trying to do the same with OSS support services for $7M will achieve long lifecyle ROI/value and assure ownership of your data/content.
Two ways to go and either can be a big waste of money, both can be a success, but (I think) only OSS will deliver affordable lifecycle ROI and let me retain usable no/low format-conversion-cost data/content.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167337</id>
	<title>Playing advocate of the devil.</title>
	<author>anomnomnomymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243867980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>What, so now another condition for using Open Source software is that you should be contribruting to it?<br>
If I use Open Office for my company, this means I should be contributing to its codesource? What if my company is an accountant agency? Should I feel morally obliged to hire programmers to do my share?<br> <br>
I think it's quite funny how first the open source movement seems to complaint how everybody is using proprietary software instead of the open source variants, which are (in some cases) perfectly able to do the job.<br>
But now that some companies are alowly picking up some open source software, they get bashed for not contributing.<br>
If you're working on open source software and you got a problem with companies actually using it without contributing, I'm sure there is a license that will let you AND open your source up to other people, AND be able to say that companies can't commercially use it.<br> <br>
Or... just make your source closed...</htmltext>
<tokenext>What , so now another condition for using Open Source software is that you should be contribruting to it ?
If I use Open Office for my company , this means I should be contributing to its codesource ?
What if my company is an accountant agency ?
Should I feel morally obliged to hire programmers to do my share ?
I think it 's quite funny how first the open source movement seems to complaint how everybody is using proprietary software instead of the open source variants , which are ( in some cases ) perfectly able to do the job .
But now that some companies are alowly picking up some open source software , they get bashed for not contributing .
If you 're working on open source software and you got a problem with companies actually using it without contributing , I 'm sure there is a license that will let you AND open your source up to other people , AND be able to say that companies ca n't commercially use it .
Or... just make your source closed.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What, so now another condition for using Open Source software is that you should be contribruting to it?
If I use Open Office for my company, this means I should be contributing to its codesource?
What if my company is an accountant agency?
Should I feel morally obliged to hire programmers to do my share?
I think it's quite funny how first the open source movement seems to complaint how everybody is using proprietary software instead of the open source variants, which are (in some cases) perfectly able to do the job.
But now that some companies are alowly picking up some open source software, they get bashed for not contributing.
If you're working on open source software and you got a problem with companies actually using it without contributing, I'm sure there is a license that will let you AND open your source up to other people, AND be able to say that companies can't commercially use it.
Or... just make your source closed...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28168681</id>
	<title>Yes</title>
	<author>DaMattster</author>
	<datestamp>1243873860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The simple answer is, "Yes," enterprise should give back to the open source community.  That said, ethics often take a back seat to the free market economy.  Corporate responsibility is oft preached but rarely, if ever, practiced.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The simple answer is , " Yes , " enterprise should give back to the open source community .
That said , ethics often take a back seat to the free market economy .
Corporate responsibility is oft preached but rarely , if ever , practiced .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The simple answer is, "Yes," enterprise should give back to the open source community.
That said, ethics often take a back seat to the free market economy.
Corporate responsibility is oft preached but rarely, if ever, practiced.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28186251</id>
	<title>Give Back</title>
	<author>dontgetshocked</author>
	<datestamp>1243973760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Of course.Is this not the purpose of Open Source? Living and sharing the dream.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course.Is this not the purpose of Open Source ?
Living and sharing the dream .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course.Is this not the purpose of Open Source?
Living and sharing the dream.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28168441</id>
	<title>Re:No, they should not</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1243872660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>So if I don't steal your car, but only borrow it for a day and return it washed and waxed with the gas tank full, what is the point of claiming damages? That is sheer greed. It is the antithesis of what the Free Software Movement is all about.</p></div></blockquote><p>Terrible analogy, Mr. uh BadAnalogyGuy; claiming damages would discourage you from using my property without permission in the future. Doing such a thing prevents me from using the car for that day, which might be a big problem for me on some days. It also risks wrecking my car so that I won't have it for many days, without warning. On the other hand, it doesn't cost the free (or otherwise) software author anything to use his software for a day or the rest of your life, and he probably won't even <i>know</i> you're using it, for the same reason.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So if I do n't steal your car , but only borrow it for a day and return it washed and waxed with the gas tank full , what is the point of claiming damages ?
That is sheer greed .
It is the antithesis of what the Free Software Movement is all about.Terrible analogy , Mr. uh BadAnalogyGuy ; claiming damages would discourage you from using my property without permission in the future .
Doing such a thing prevents me from using the car for that day , which might be a big problem for me on some days .
It also risks wrecking my car so that I wo n't have it for many days , without warning .
On the other hand , it does n't cost the free ( or otherwise ) software author anything to use his software for a day or the rest of your life , and he probably wo n't even know you 're using it , for the same reason .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So if I don't steal your car, but only borrow it for a day and return it washed and waxed with the gas tank full, what is the point of claiming damages?
That is sheer greed.
It is the antithesis of what the Free Software Movement is all about.Terrible analogy, Mr. uh BadAnalogyGuy; claiming damages would discourage you from using my property without permission in the future.
Doing such a thing prevents me from using the car for that day, which might be a big problem for me on some days.
It also risks wrecking my car so that I won't have it for many days, without warning.
On the other hand, it doesn't cost the free (or otherwise) software author anything to use his software for a day or the rest of your life, and he probably won't even know you're using it, for the same reason.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167091</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28177441</id>
	<title>Re:Playing advocate of the devil.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243874460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the idea is to contribute in some way. Not necessarily through finances or code donations. It could be something as simple as telling someone about the software (recommendation). That may lead to another potential user who could contribute in some other fashion (or also pass the word along). Heck that's how Firefox got marketshare, word of mouth.</p><p>I don't donate money (though I might once graduate school is over with) or code. But I try to tell people about alternatives to paid software and when I feel like it, helping out on the forums by answering questions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the idea is to contribute in some way .
Not necessarily through finances or code donations .
It could be something as simple as telling someone about the software ( recommendation ) .
That may lead to another potential user who could contribute in some other fashion ( or also pass the word along ) .
Heck that 's how Firefox got marketshare , word of mouth.I do n't donate money ( though I might once graduate school is over with ) or code .
But I try to tell people about alternatives to paid software and when I feel like it , helping out on the forums by answering questions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the idea is to contribute in some way.
Not necessarily through finances or code donations.
It could be something as simple as telling someone about the software (recommendation).
That may lead to another potential user who could contribute in some other fashion (or also pass the word along).
Heck that's how Firefox got marketshare, word of mouth.I don't donate money (though I might once graduate school is over with) or code.
But I try to tell people about alternatives to paid software and when I feel like it, helping out on the forums by answering questions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167337</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167179</id>
	<title>No, they should not.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243867320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Open source software isn't about receiving, it is about giving.</p><p>This story shows a fundamental lack of understanding about what open source is about.</p><p>If companies, IT departments or not, should give back, then why shouldn't users at home?</p><p>Where do you draw the line?</p><p>Are people trying to say that Open Source Software shouldn't be free for commercial use?</p><p>Seems to me like someone or some people in the Open Source movement are either greedy or getting greedy. Money is not what Open Source Software is about.</p><p>Maybe the above is naive and altruistic because companies will exploit Open Source Software, but really, who cares?</p><p>In the end, if they don't give back then they're only making life more difficult for themselves because they will need to continue to maintain any private changes/patches themselves. There are significant cost savings to giving private changes back because you no longer have to maintain them yourself. Smart companies will realise this. Dumb ones won't. And so let the crumbs fall where they may... we should not care who gives back, if they give back or how or what. It's not important to us.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Open source software is n't about receiving , it is about giving.This story shows a fundamental lack of understanding about what open source is about.If companies , IT departments or not , should give back , then why should n't users at home ? Where do you draw the line ? Are people trying to say that Open Source Software should n't be free for commercial use ? Seems to me like someone or some people in the Open Source movement are either greedy or getting greedy .
Money is not what Open Source Software is about.Maybe the above is naive and altruistic because companies will exploit Open Source Software , but really , who cares ? In the end , if they do n't give back then they 're only making life more difficult for themselves because they will need to continue to maintain any private changes/patches themselves .
There are significant cost savings to giving private changes back because you no longer have to maintain them yourself .
Smart companies will realise this .
Dumb ones wo n't .
And so let the crumbs fall where they may... we should not care who gives back , if they give back or how or what .
It 's not important to us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Open source software isn't about receiving, it is about giving.This story shows a fundamental lack of understanding about what open source is about.If companies, IT departments or not, should give back, then why shouldn't users at home?Where do you draw the line?Are people trying to say that Open Source Software shouldn't be free for commercial use?Seems to me like someone or some people in the Open Source movement are either greedy or getting greedy.
Money is not what Open Source Software is about.Maybe the above is naive and altruistic because companies will exploit Open Source Software, but really, who cares?In the end, if they don't give back then they're only making life more difficult for themselves because they will need to continue to maintain any private changes/patches themselves.
There are significant cost savings to giving private changes back because you no longer have to maintain them yourself.
Smart companies will realise this.
Dumb ones won't.
And so let the crumbs fall where they may... we should not care who gives back, if they give back or how or what.
It's not important to us.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167757</id>
	<title>Money isn't enough?</title>
	<author>kperrier</author>
	<datestamp>1243869960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So the money that the companies pay to RedHat and/or Novell isn't enough?  Voting with their dollars is a pretty powerful vote.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So the money that the companies pay to RedHat and/or Novell is n't enough ?
Voting with their dollars is a pretty powerful vote .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So the money that the companies pay to RedHat and/or Novell isn't enough?
Voting with their dollars is a pretty powerful vote.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167075</id>
	<title>Of course they *should*...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243866840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But many companies are too small to make a signifigant contribution. Are we suggesting making contributions manditory in order to get free software? Doing this would simply destroy the OSS movement completely.</p><p>Microsoft requires contributions... of money. Small companies that cant help develop OSS would simply be forced back to the traditional pay-for software.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But many companies are too small to make a signifigant contribution .
Are we suggesting making contributions manditory in order to get free software ?
Doing this would simply destroy the OSS movement completely.Microsoft requires contributions... of money .
Small companies that cant help develop OSS would simply be forced back to the traditional pay-for software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But many companies are too small to make a signifigant contribution.
Are we suggesting making contributions manditory in order to get free software?
Doing this would simply destroy the OSS movement completely.Microsoft requires contributions... of money.
Small companies that cant help develop OSS would simply be forced back to the traditional pay-for software.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167603</id>
	<title>Can't have your cake and eat it, too.</title>
	<author>TrebleJunkie</author>
	<datestamp>1243869180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Altruists who go looking for reward, recognition and contributions aren't very good altruists.  If you expect rewards and recognition -- sell your product.  If you expect contributions, pay for them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Altruists who go looking for reward , recognition and contributions are n't very good altruists .
If you expect rewards and recognition -- sell your product .
If you expect contributions , pay for them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Altruists who go looking for reward, recognition and contributions aren't very good altruists.
If you expect rewards and recognition -- sell your product.
If you expect contributions, pay for them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28168489</id>
	<title>Militant GPL Enthusiasts</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243872960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Slightly off topic, but I remember once when I developing a game, I was contacted by someone who was interested in extending it and adding in some new and exciting features. At first I thought he was just in the process of tweaking the game so that it could be more easily ported to things such as the PSP, Nintendo DS, etc. I wrote back and advised him as best I could remember, as to why I had done X, Y, and Z.</p><p>
Then, one day, he wrote me a very angry email, demanding to know where I had put the source code for my PNGs, JPGs, GIMP plugins, KDE and Kate editions, and what I had done with my kernel sources. After some more emails, he informed me that I should be storing all the artwork for my game in GIMP's native layer format so that anyone else could use it. He said that I was breaching the GPL by not doing so, since he could not effectively re-use the art. He also insisted on my turning over any alterations to popular programs that I had made.
</p><p>
Probably the most bizarre part was the bit about the GPL itself - When my game is first run, the GPL notice is shown. I wrote in my game that the notice should not be removed. He disagreed - Since the GPL gave him the right to change and modify the code, that meant that he also had the right to remove the GPL notice.
</p><p>There are times when I wonder if open source's worst enemies are its users...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Slightly off topic , but I remember once when I developing a game , I was contacted by someone who was interested in extending it and adding in some new and exciting features .
At first I thought he was just in the process of tweaking the game so that it could be more easily ported to things such as the PSP , Nintendo DS , etc .
I wrote back and advised him as best I could remember , as to why I had done X , Y , and Z . Then , one day , he wrote me a very angry email , demanding to know where I had put the source code for my PNGs , JPGs , GIMP plugins , KDE and Kate editions , and what I had done with my kernel sources .
After some more emails , he informed me that I should be storing all the artwork for my game in GIMP 's native layer format so that anyone else could use it .
He said that I was breaching the GPL by not doing so , since he could not effectively re-use the art .
He also insisted on my turning over any alterations to popular programs that I had made .
Probably the most bizarre part was the bit about the GPL itself - When my game is first run , the GPL notice is shown .
I wrote in my game that the notice should not be removed .
He disagreed - Since the GPL gave him the right to change and modify the code , that meant that he also had the right to remove the GPL notice .
There are times when I wonder if open source 's worst enemies are its users.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Slightly off topic, but I remember once when I developing a game, I was contacted by someone who was interested in extending it and adding in some new and exciting features.
At first I thought he was just in the process of tweaking the game so that it could be more easily ported to things such as the PSP, Nintendo DS, etc.
I wrote back and advised him as best I could remember, as to why I had done X, Y, and Z.
Then, one day, he wrote me a very angry email, demanding to know where I had put the source code for my PNGs, JPGs, GIMP plugins, KDE and Kate editions, and what I had done with my kernel sources.
After some more emails, he informed me that I should be storing all the artwork for my game in GIMP's native layer format so that anyone else could use it.
He said that I was breaching the GPL by not doing so, since he could not effectively re-use the art.
He also insisted on my turning over any alterations to popular programs that I had made.
Probably the most bizarre part was the bit about the GPL itself - When my game is first run, the GPL notice is shown.
I wrote in my game that the notice should not be removed.
He disagreed - Since the GPL gave him the right to change and modify the code, that meant that he also had the right to remove the GPL notice.
There are times when I wonder if open source's worst enemies are its users...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167061</id>
	<title>Ah,</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243866780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>no.</htmltext>
<tokenext>no .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>no.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28168475</id>
	<title>Nonsense</title>
	<author>AttillaTheNun</author>
	<datestamp>1243872840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Any organization that makes use of open source projects/code contributes, as they are now a vested stakeholder in the success of the project and code. This may not translate into direct monetary or code contribution, but may translate into general project popularity, de-facto beta testing of the code and, if push comes to shove, the need to actively contribute in some manner if/when a gap or issue with the code translates into a commercial need on behalf of the organization using the code.
<p>
Nothing is free, as the user has now staked their business in some form on the success and continuation of the open-source project and source code unless/until they decide to invest elsewhere in alternate solutions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Any organization that makes use of open source projects/code contributes , as they are now a vested stakeholder in the success of the project and code .
This may not translate into direct monetary or code contribution , but may translate into general project popularity , de-facto beta testing of the code and , if push comes to shove , the need to actively contribute in some manner if/when a gap or issue with the code translates into a commercial need on behalf of the organization using the code .
Nothing is free , as the user has now staked their business in some form on the success and continuation of the open-source project and source code unless/until they decide to invest elsewhere in alternate solutions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any organization that makes use of open source projects/code contributes, as they are now a vested stakeholder in the success of the project and code.
This may not translate into direct monetary or code contribution, but may translate into general project popularity, de-facto beta testing of the code and, if push comes to shove, the need to actively contribute in some manner if/when a gap or issue with the code translates into a commercial need on behalf of the organization using the code.
Nothing is free, as the user has now staked their business in some form on the success and continuation of the open-source project and source code unless/until they decide to invest elsewhere in alternate solutions.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28168063</id>
	<title>Re:Just To Be Clear...</title>
	<author>Braino420</author>
	<datestamp>1243871100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I understand your point about the OSI, but I'm not sure how it relates to this topic of corporations contributing back code. Sure, there may be less strict licenses that OSI approve of, but the GPL allows corporations to do the \_exact same thing\_.<blockquote><div><p>Now we complain that these corporations are taking advantage of Open Source software in exactly the way the OSI told them they could?</p></div></blockquote><p>
The OSI \_and\_ the FSF.</p><blockquote><div><p>But none of them will ever contribute back as much as they get</p></div></blockquote><p>
I'm not sure that's possible for anyone at this point.</p><blockquote><div><p>This is what you get when you take a movement based on an ideal and pervert it to try and take "market share" for a free product. You get more people using the product, but you lose the ideal in the process.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Good riddance. I'm glad the OSI did what they did, and I'm glad because it allows the pragmatic OSS people to be disassociated with the FSF while still with them in some underlying principles. Now, I'm grateful for what the FSF has done, but they will usually stick to their ideals when it's impractical. I simply want people to use my code, and if they redistribute it, then they should give their changes back to me. That's all I want, not some dream about people using free software everywhere (although I have no problem with that either).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I understand your point about the OSI , but I 'm not sure how it relates to this topic of corporations contributing back code .
Sure , there may be less strict licenses that OSI approve of , but the GPL allows corporations to do the \ _exact same thing \ _.Now we complain that these corporations are taking advantage of Open Source software in exactly the way the OSI told them they could ?
The OSI \ _and \ _ the FSF.But none of them will ever contribute back as much as they get I 'm not sure that 's possible for anyone at this point.This is what you get when you take a movement based on an ideal and pervert it to try and take " market share " for a free product .
You get more people using the product , but you lose the ideal in the process .
Good riddance .
I 'm glad the OSI did what they did , and I 'm glad because it allows the pragmatic OSS people to be disassociated with the FSF while still with them in some underlying principles .
Now , I 'm grateful for what the FSF has done , but they will usually stick to their ideals when it 's impractical .
I simply want people to use my code , and if they redistribute it , then they should give their changes back to me .
That 's all I want , not some dream about people using free software everywhere ( although I have no problem with that either ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I understand your point about the OSI, but I'm not sure how it relates to this topic of corporations contributing back code.
Sure, there may be less strict licenses that OSI approve of, but the GPL allows corporations to do the \_exact same thing\_.Now we complain that these corporations are taking advantage of Open Source software in exactly the way the OSI told them they could?
The OSI \_and\_ the FSF.But none of them will ever contribute back as much as they get
I'm not sure that's possible for anyone at this point.This is what you get when you take a movement based on an ideal and pervert it to try and take "market share" for a free product.
You get more people using the product, but you lose the ideal in the process.
Good riddance.
I'm glad the OSI did what they did, and I'm glad because it allows the pragmatic OSS people to be disassociated with the FSF while still with them in some underlying principles.
Now, I'm grateful for what the FSF has done, but they will usually stick to their ideals when it's impractical.
I simply want people to use my code, and if they redistribute it, then they should give their changes back to me.
That's all I want, not some dream about people using free software everywhere (although I have no problem with that either).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167405</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167591</id>
	<title>One funny thing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243869180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you ask ten thousand people on the street to describe "the word 'free' as it applies to software", and you exclude anyone who uses a computer more than two hours a day, I would believe just about zero would describe it the same way as the FOSS movement.</p><p>How is it that terms with previous definitions and connotations have their meaning appropriated in such a way that people outside of the group doesn't recognise the content any more?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you ask ten thousand people on the street to describe " the word 'free ' as it applies to software " , and you exclude anyone who uses a computer more than two hours a day , I would believe just about zero would describe it the same way as the FOSS movement.How is it that terms with previous definitions and connotations have their meaning appropriated in such a way that people outside of the group does n't recognise the content any more ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you ask ten thousand people on the street to describe "the word 'free' as it applies to software", and you exclude anyone who uses a computer more than two hours a day, I would believe just about zero would describe it the same way as the FOSS movement.How is it that terms with previous definitions and connotations have their meaning appropriated in such a way that people outside of the group doesn't recognise the content any more?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28172889</id>
	<title>Re:But some software is more free than others</title>
	<author>Millennium</author>
	<datestamp>1243847940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Making users want to give back" doesn't seem to have worked so well either, given the current situation. The carrot has its place, but so does the stick.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Making users want to give back " does n't seem to have worked so well either , given the current situation .
The carrot has its place , but so does the stick .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Making users want to give back" doesn't seem to have worked so well either, given the current situation.
The carrot has its place, but so does the stick.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167089</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167855</id>
	<title>Re:Call me an idiot but...</title>
	<author>shentino</author>
	<datestamp>1243870260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a pity when one must make a martyr out of himself to be heard.</p><p>Perhaps this could be the start of a shot heard round the world against our evil red-coat corporate overlords?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a pity when one must make a martyr out of himself to be heard.Perhaps this could be the start of a shot heard round the world against our evil red-coat corporate overlords ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a pity when one must make a martyr out of himself to be heard.Perhaps this could be the start of a shot heard round the world against our evil red-coat corporate overlords?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167487</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167389</id>
	<title>Re:But some software is more free than others</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243868340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is the problem with the FOSS model. The vast majority of the people only care about free as in beer. Heck even the majority of FOSS zelots on Slashdot contribute nothing to FOSS. They claim that they are supporters because they encourage other people to use FOSS.  The problem with FOSS is people need to eat. They want to own a home and retire someday. To do that you must get paid.<br>A good number of Kernel developers are getting paid by Red Hat, IBM, and Novell. Imagine that they are getting paid by companies that sell software and at in the case of IBM hardware.<br>Firefox developers are getting paid by Google search. Yes Firefox makes money from... Advertising!<br>OpenOffice developers are getting paid by Sun because Sun really hated Microsoft. Let us hope that keep up.<br>You can never force people to contribute to FOSS. It will not happen and that is just that. What is worse is that they models of how one can make money with FOSS are limited to only a few types of software.  Nobody will every pay for modifications and support for a casual game.</p><p>This is why FOSS will never be the only model for software development. It is also why Linux if it is every really going to do well on the desktop will need to have a way for people to sell software.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the problem with the FOSS model .
The vast majority of the people only care about free as in beer .
Heck even the majority of FOSS zelots on Slashdot contribute nothing to FOSS .
They claim that they are supporters because they encourage other people to use FOSS .
The problem with FOSS is people need to eat .
They want to own a home and retire someday .
To do that you must get paid.A good number of Kernel developers are getting paid by Red Hat , IBM , and Novell .
Imagine that they are getting paid by companies that sell software and at in the case of IBM hardware.Firefox developers are getting paid by Google search .
Yes Firefox makes money from... Advertising ! OpenOffice developers are getting paid by Sun because Sun really hated Microsoft .
Let us hope that keep up.You can never force people to contribute to FOSS .
It will not happen and that is just that .
What is worse is that they models of how one can make money with FOSS are limited to only a few types of software .
Nobody will every pay for modifications and support for a casual game.This is why FOSS will never be the only model for software development .
It is also why Linux if it is every really going to do well on the desktop will need to have a way for people to sell software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is the problem with the FOSS model.
The vast majority of the people only care about free as in beer.
Heck even the majority of FOSS zelots on Slashdot contribute nothing to FOSS.
They claim that they are supporters because they encourage other people to use FOSS.
The problem with FOSS is people need to eat.
They want to own a home and retire someday.
To do that you must get paid.A good number of Kernel developers are getting paid by Red Hat, IBM, and Novell.
Imagine that they are getting paid by companies that sell software and at in the case of IBM hardware.Firefox developers are getting paid by Google search.
Yes Firefox makes money from... Advertising!OpenOffice developers are getting paid by Sun because Sun really hated Microsoft.
Let us hope that keep up.You can never force people to contribute to FOSS.
It will not happen and that is just that.
What is worse is that they models of how one can make money with FOSS are limited to only a few types of software.
Nobody will every pay for modifications and support for a casual game.This is why FOSS will never be the only model for software development.
It is also why Linux if it is every really going to do well on the desktop will need to have a way for people to sell software.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167089</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28169565</id>
	<title>GPL is there to protect the rights of coders</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243877580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok.. I agree with most of what people are saying here about free to use and change therefore feel free to contribute/not contribute</p><p>My concern is - what if a company takes code from various GPL projects, hacks it together with some their own code, releases a binary only tying you to a service for the software.</p><p>Isn't this why the GPL is there in the first place ? its not about those who use it freely, its about those who take it and hide its face in order to profit.</p><p>Its not the bulk of FOSS software that suffers from this, but I believe it does go on. I wonder what people here think of this story.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok.. I agree with most of what people are saying here about free to use and change therefore feel free to contribute/not contributeMy concern is - what if a company takes code from various GPL projects , hacks it together with some their own code , releases a binary only tying you to a service for the software.Is n't this why the GPL is there in the first place ?
its not about those who use it freely , its about those who take it and hide its face in order to profit.Its not the bulk of FOSS software that suffers from this , but I believe it does go on .
I wonder what people here think of this story .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok.. I agree with most of what people are saying here about free to use and change therefore feel free to contribute/not contributeMy concern is - what if a company takes code from various GPL projects, hacks it together with some their own code, releases a binary only tying you to a service for the software.Isn't this why the GPL is there in the first place ?
its not about those who use it freely, its about those who take it and hide its face in order to profit.Its not the bulk of FOSS software that suffers from this, but I believe it does go on.
I wonder what people here think of this story.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28168667</id>
	<title>When will the whining stop?</title>
	<author>tsa</author>
	<datestamp>1243873740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What is the problem? First people whined because open source was not used by many, and now people whine because it is used by many. It's never good, is it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What is the problem ?
First people whined because open source was not used by many , and now people whine because it is used by many .
It 's never good , is it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is the problem?
First people whined because open source was not used by many, and now people whine because it is used by many.
It's never good, is it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28169419</id>
	<title>Its sinking in</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243876860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just had to troll this one...</p><p>Nothing is free. Nothing. If your giving something away for free then its YOUR TIME.</p><p>Well, then we observe these massive open source projects. And one wonders where the H did all the money come to pay for that? This is more than a few individuals with spare time. The labor and time is intense.</p><p>Maybe its this: large companies getting a tax break for giving away software for the general good. Government pays.</p><p>Better yet, the government subsiding the universities to give software away. Students, profs, etc. -- paid by the government!</p><p>Or better yet, government and large companies give software away to destroy the little guy. But you pay in your taxes anyways -- your forced to pay indirectly.</p><p>In a way, open source a short position on freelance software developers. At some point they are going to have to cover. And now they are in control.</p><p>As the credit collapse gets worse and the economy tightens, I expect to hear the complaining increase. The electricity bill must be paid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just had to troll this one...Nothing is free .
Nothing. If your giving something away for free then its YOUR TIME.Well , then we observe these massive open source projects .
And one wonders where the H did all the money come to pay for that ?
This is more than a few individuals with spare time .
The labor and time is intense.Maybe its this : large companies getting a tax break for giving away software for the general good .
Government pays.Better yet , the government subsiding the universities to give software away .
Students , profs , etc .
-- paid by the government ! Or better yet , government and large companies give software away to destroy the little guy .
But you pay in your taxes anyways -- your forced to pay indirectly.In a way , open source a short position on freelance software developers .
At some point they are going to have to cover .
And now they are in control.As the credit collapse gets worse and the economy tightens , I expect to hear the complaining increase .
The electricity bill must be paid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just had to troll this one...Nothing is free.
Nothing. If your giving something away for free then its YOUR TIME.Well, then we observe these massive open source projects.
And one wonders where the H did all the money come to pay for that?
This is more than a few individuals with spare time.
The labor and time is intense.Maybe its this: large companies getting a tax break for giving away software for the general good.
Government pays.Better yet, the government subsiding the universities to give software away.
Students, profs, etc.
-- paid by the government!Or better yet, government and large companies give software away to destroy the little guy.
But you pay in your taxes anyways -- your forced to pay indirectly.In a way, open source a short position on freelance software developers.
At some point they are going to have to cover.
And now they are in control.As the credit collapse gets worse and the economy tightens, I expect to hear the complaining increase.
The electricity bill must be paid.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167113</id>
	<title>not entirely true</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243867020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Corporations pay for those hefty service contracts.</p><p>In my office we use an open source wiki and we pay thousands of US dollars a year for support/maintenance contracts.</p><p>There's probably not much code contribution as most IT people don't have a software development background. Those who do have the skills lack the time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Corporations pay for those hefty service contracts.In my office we use an open source wiki and we pay thousands of US dollars a year for support/maintenance contracts.There 's probably not much code contribution as most IT people do n't have a software development background .
Those who do have the skills lack the time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Corporations pay for those hefty service contracts.In my office we use an open source wiki and we pay thousands of US dollars a year for support/maintenance contracts.There's probably not much code contribution as most IT people don't have a software development background.
Those who do have the skills lack the time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28168439</id>
	<title>Re:Call me an idiot but...</title>
	<author>Lumpy</author>
	<datestamp>1243872660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's called having scruples and most people don't have them.</p><p>your old employer crossed a line you believe strongly in.  You reacted with what you though was best.</p><p>That makes you a far better man than most.  I tip my hat to you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's called having scruples and most people do n't have them.your old employer crossed a line you believe strongly in .
You reacted with what you though was best.That makes you a far better man than most .
I tip my hat to you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's called having scruples and most people don't have them.your old employer crossed a line you believe strongly in.
You reacted with what you though was best.That makes you a far better man than most.
I tip my hat to you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167173</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28171901</id>
	<title>Re:Of course they *should*...</title>
	<author>MikeFM</author>
	<datestamp>1243887540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I manage development for a small company and while we obviously can't make huge contributions I do try to make sure we make occasional donations and release what source code we can back to the community. Giving back a little is better than doing nothing.</p><p>I've been tempted to hire one of the main opensource ERP developers to add all the functionality we need and figure out how to port our data to their system because our proprietary ERP software is a real mess. I'd like to at least have the option of an alternative open. So that is an idea we keep throwing around as a possibility. The support cost alone for our commercial ERP would be enough to pay a developers yearly salary.</p><p>I agree that mandatory contributions isn't the way to go. The issue is social and should be handled by socializing users on their responsibilities. Also developers need to make it easier to donate small amounts of money as that is all a lot of smaller businesses and home users can do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I manage development for a small company and while we obviously ca n't make huge contributions I do try to make sure we make occasional donations and release what source code we can back to the community .
Giving back a little is better than doing nothing.I 've been tempted to hire one of the main opensource ERP developers to add all the functionality we need and figure out how to port our data to their system because our proprietary ERP software is a real mess .
I 'd like to at least have the option of an alternative open .
So that is an idea we keep throwing around as a possibility .
The support cost alone for our commercial ERP would be enough to pay a developers yearly salary.I agree that mandatory contributions is n't the way to go .
The issue is social and should be handled by socializing users on their responsibilities .
Also developers need to make it easier to donate small amounts of money as that is all a lot of smaller businesses and home users can do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I manage development for a small company and while we obviously can't make huge contributions I do try to make sure we make occasional donations and release what source code we can back to the community.
Giving back a little is better than doing nothing.I've been tempted to hire one of the main opensource ERP developers to add all the functionality we need and figure out how to port our data to their system because our proprietary ERP software is a real mess.
I'd like to at least have the option of an alternative open.
So that is an idea we keep throwing around as a possibility.
The support cost alone for our commercial ERP would be enough to pay a developers yearly salary.I agree that mandatory contributions isn't the way to go.
The issue is social and should be handled by socializing users on their responsibilities.
Also developers need to make it easier to donate small amounts of money as that is all a lot of smaller businesses and home users can do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167075</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28184949</id>
	<title>Sounds like something Microsoft would say...</title>
	<author>wiedzmin</author>
	<datestamp>1243968000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Let's be honest here, if open source products weren't free - enterprises would have no interest in them. If cost/resources were involved, enterprises would just buy a commercial product with all the support that comes with it. If anything - open source community is getting a great userbase, with brand recognition and bug reporting that comes with it when their products get noticed and picked up by enterprise IT. Force them to pay, and you will end up with a handfull of home users trying out your products when they're bored, resulting in them just taking up space on the web until they die off due to the lack of interest. If anything - enterprise users are keeping opens source projects alive, take a look at Nagios for example...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's be honest here , if open source products were n't free - enterprises would have no interest in them .
If cost/resources were involved , enterprises would just buy a commercial product with all the support that comes with it .
If anything - open source community is getting a great userbase , with brand recognition and bug reporting that comes with it when their products get noticed and picked up by enterprise IT .
Force them to pay , and you will end up with a handfull of home users trying out your products when they 're bored , resulting in them just taking up space on the web until they die off due to the lack of interest .
If anything - enterprise users are keeping opens source projects alive , take a look at Nagios for example.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's be honest here, if open source products weren't free - enterprises would have no interest in them.
If cost/resources were involved, enterprises would just buy a commercial product with all the support that comes with it.
If anything - open source community is getting a great userbase, with brand recognition and bug reporting that comes with it when their products get noticed and picked up by enterprise IT.
Force them to pay, and you will end up with a handfull of home users trying out your products when they're bored, resulting in them just taking up space on the web until they die off due to the lack of interest.
If anything - enterprise users are keeping opens source projects alive, take a look at Nagios for example...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28170261</id>
	<title>Re:Of course they *should*...</title>
	<author>rasjani</author>
	<datestamp>1243881000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is no submission that is not significant. Even if the feature is not significant by itself, im sure the project will see the meaning of patch submission..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no submission that is not significant .
Even if the feature is not significant by itself , im sure the project will see the meaning of patch submission. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no submission that is not significant.
Even if the feature is not significant by itself, im sure the project will see the meaning of patch submission..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167075</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28173151</id>
	<title>You don't want the crap I write for my employer..</title>
	<author>spiffmastercow</author>
	<datestamp>1243848960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Trust me, you don't.  What's the point in open-sourcing a bunch of custom code hacked together and rewritten 100 times for the benefit of 5-10 people in a specific organization?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Trust me , you do n't .
What 's the point in open-sourcing a bunch of custom code hacked together and rewritten 100 times for the benefit of 5-10 people in a specific organization ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Trust me, you don't.
What's the point in open-sourcing a bunch of custom code hacked together and rewritten 100 times for the benefit of 5-10 people in a specific organization?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28168677</id>
	<title>CYA</title>
	<author>geoffrobinson</author>
	<datestamp>1243873800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wish I knew the following from day one on entering the business world:</p><p>Most decisions are made out of fear. Unless you are the boss/owner, you don't want to make any decision with negative consequences.</p><p>I think in this scenario management doesn't see any upside. I'm not fully articulating this. They may not want to be complete leeches, but they aren't incentivized to care.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wish I knew the following from day one on entering the business world : Most decisions are made out of fear .
Unless you are the boss/owner , you do n't want to make any decision with negative consequences.I think in this scenario management does n't see any upside .
I 'm not fully articulating this .
They may not want to be complete leeches , but they are n't incentivized to care .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wish I knew the following from day one on entering the business world:Most decisions are made out of fear.
Unless you are the boss/owner, you don't want to make any decision with negative consequences.I think in this scenario management doesn't see any upside.
I'm not fully articulating this.
They may not want to be complete leeches, but they aren't incentivized to care.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167225</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28174499</id>
	<title>Re:Just To Be Clear...</title>
	<author>dangitman</author>
	<datestamp>1243853940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This is what you get when you take a movement based on an ideal and pervert it to try and take "market share" for a free product. You get more people using the product, but you lose the ideal in the process.</p></div><p>No, this is what happens when what you put in your license is different than your ideals. If your ideal is that everybody contributes and shares, <strong>then put a clause to that effect in the fucking license.</strong> That's just how it works. What court of law is going to read a contract that says one thing, and decide in your favor based on the argument "but that's not what I really meant by that contract"? It doesn't matter what you meant, or what your ideals are, it's what you put on paper that counts.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is what you get when you take a movement based on an ideal and pervert it to try and take " market share " for a free product .
You get more people using the product , but you lose the ideal in the process.No , this is what happens when what you put in your license is different than your ideals .
If your ideal is that everybody contributes and shares , then put a clause to that effect in the fucking license .
That 's just how it works .
What court of law is going to read a contract that says one thing , and decide in your favor based on the argument " but that 's not what I really meant by that contract " ?
It does n't matter what you meant , or what your ideals are , it 's what you put on paper that counts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is what you get when you take a movement based on an ideal and pervert it to try and take "market share" for a free product.
You get more people using the product, but you lose the ideal in the process.No, this is what happens when what you put in your license is different than your ideals.
If your ideal is that everybody contributes and shares, then put a clause to that effect in the fucking license.
That's just how it works.
What court of law is going to read a contract that says one thing, and decide in your favor based on the argument "but that's not what I really meant by that contract"?
It doesn't matter what you meant, or what your ideals are, it's what you put on paper that counts.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167405</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167729</id>
	<title>Bullshit</title>
	<author>Bob9113</author>
	<datestamp>1243869840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I call bullshit on this article.</p><p>I have written Open Source code, I have worked with and been friends with dozens of Open Source hackers, I even organized a Linux install-fest once. I have never heard one single Open Source hacker whisper the slightest hint of a complaint about the free rider problem. When you get into developing Open Source, it is almost certainly after having spent a lot of time with proprietary software, and having spent some time wondering, "How does this Open Source thing work?" If you've pondered that problem for more than eleven seconds, you've asked yourself the "what about free riders" question. If you've done that, you must've reached the only conclusion: Open Source is Open Source.</p><p>Are there some people out there who regret making their code Open Source at all? Sure, but they aren't representative of this community. They're people who don't grasp why Open Source is worth the rather obvious cost.</p><p>Are there corporations that have bought Open Source subsidiaries and regretted it? Sure, and I'll bet they try to convince the employees of the subsidiary that the free rider problem is a problem. But the complainers aren't part of the Open Source community.</p><p>The free rider problem is a natural and accepted part of Open Source development, that anyone serious about Open Source completely accepts. Not a single person I know in the community has every complained, and this article is a crock.</p><p>Who does this article identify as those complaining about the fact that Open Source is Open Source?</p><p><i>Matt Asay, vice president of business development at Alfresco, said in a post earlier this year.</i></p><p>Are you kidding me? On what planet does a vice president of business development get to talk about what contributors to Open Source think? Unless he's spending a lot of time filing bug reports, he's not a contributor and he can stick his opinion up his ass. Has he ever even posted a comment on Slashdot? I bet not. No offense to business guys, who are important parts of the US and global economy, and do many important things that I cannot. But you are not Open Source contributors, and not part of the community, even if you insist that the community does not exist.</p><p>Suppose I said, "CEOs are frustrated that their technology divisions are not contributing more to Open Source." Would you write an article in CEO Magazine about how CEOs are frustrated that their technology divisions are not contributing more to Open Source? No? Of course not. Because I'm no more a representative of CEO's than Asay is a representative of Open Source contributors.</p><p><i>Dave Rosenberg, co-founder and former CEO of MuleSource, and now part of the founding team of RiverMuse</i></p><p>CEO guy decided he doesn't like the way Open Source works? Bye. Don't let the door hit you in the ass.</p><p><i>Michael Scharf, a member of the Eclipse Foundation's architecture council</i></p><p>OK, that's one.</p><p>So this article picked two business weenies to flesh out their claims that the community is pissed off about Open Source software being Open Source software, based on a single actual technologist's gasbag blog post.</p><p>Nothing to see here. Move on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I call bullshit on this article.I have written Open Source code , I have worked with and been friends with dozens of Open Source hackers , I even organized a Linux install-fest once .
I have never heard one single Open Source hacker whisper the slightest hint of a complaint about the free rider problem .
When you get into developing Open Source , it is almost certainly after having spent a lot of time with proprietary software , and having spent some time wondering , " How does this Open Source thing work ?
" If you 've pondered that problem for more than eleven seconds , you 've asked yourself the " what about free riders " question .
If you 've done that , you must 've reached the only conclusion : Open Source is Open Source.Are there some people out there who regret making their code Open Source at all ?
Sure , but they are n't representative of this community .
They 're people who do n't grasp why Open Source is worth the rather obvious cost.Are there corporations that have bought Open Source subsidiaries and regretted it ?
Sure , and I 'll bet they try to convince the employees of the subsidiary that the free rider problem is a problem .
But the complainers are n't part of the Open Source community.The free rider problem is a natural and accepted part of Open Source development , that anyone serious about Open Source completely accepts .
Not a single person I know in the community has every complained , and this article is a crock.Who does this article identify as those complaining about the fact that Open Source is Open Source ? Matt Asay , vice president of business development at Alfresco , said in a post earlier this year.Are you kidding me ?
On what planet does a vice president of business development get to talk about what contributors to Open Source think ?
Unless he 's spending a lot of time filing bug reports , he 's not a contributor and he can stick his opinion up his ass .
Has he ever even posted a comment on Slashdot ?
I bet not .
No offense to business guys , who are important parts of the US and global economy , and do many important things that I can not .
But you are not Open Source contributors , and not part of the community , even if you insist that the community does not exist.Suppose I said , " CEOs are frustrated that their technology divisions are not contributing more to Open Source .
" Would you write an article in CEO Magazine about how CEOs are frustrated that their technology divisions are not contributing more to Open Source ?
No ? Of course not .
Because I 'm no more a representative of CEO 's than Asay is a representative of Open Source contributors.Dave Rosenberg , co-founder and former CEO of MuleSource , and now part of the founding team of RiverMuseCEO guy decided he does n't like the way Open Source works ?
Bye. Do n't let the door hit you in the ass.Michael Scharf , a member of the Eclipse Foundation 's architecture councilOK , that 's one.So this article picked two business weenies to flesh out their claims that the community is pissed off about Open Source software being Open Source software , based on a single actual technologist 's gasbag blog post.Nothing to see here .
Move on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I call bullshit on this article.I have written Open Source code, I have worked with and been friends with dozens of Open Source hackers, I even organized a Linux install-fest once.
I have never heard one single Open Source hacker whisper the slightest hint of a complaint about the free rider problem.
When you get into developing Open Source, it is almost certainly after having spent a lot of time with proprietary software, and having spent some time wondering, "How does this Open Source thing work?
" If you've pondered that problem for more than eleven seconds, you've asked yourself the "what about free riders" question.
If you've done that, you must've reached the only conclusion: Open Source is Open Source.Are there some people out there who regret making their code Open Source at all?
Sure, but they aren't representative of this community.
They're people who don't grasp why Open Source is worth the rather obvious cost.Are there corporations that have bought Open Source subsidiaries and regretted it?
Sure, and I'll bet they try to convince the employees of the subsidiary that the free rider problem is a problem.
But the complainers aren't part of the Open Source community.The free rider problem is a natural and accepted part of Open Source development, that anyone serious about Open Source completely accepts.
Not a single person I know in the community has every complained, and this article is a crock.Who does this article identify as those complaining about the fact that Open Source is Open Source?Matt Asay, vice president of business development at Alfresco, said in a post earlier this year.Are you kidding me?
On what planet does a vice president of business development get to talk about what contributors to Open Source think?
Unless he's spending a lot of time filing bug reports, he's not a contributor and he can stick his opinion up his ass.
Has he ever even posted a comment on Slashdot?
I bet not.
No offense to business guys, who are important parts of the US and global economy, and do many important things that I cannot.
But you are not Open Source contributors, and not part of the community, even if you insist that the community does not exist.Suppose I said, "CEOs are frustrated that their technology divisions are not contributing more to Open Source.
" Would you write an article in CEO Magazine about how CEOs are frustrated that their technology divisions are not contributing more to Open Source?
No? Of course not.
Because I'm no more a representative of CEO's than Asay is a representative of Open Source contributors.Dave Rosenberg, co-founder and former CEO of MuleSource, and now part of the founding team of RiverMuseCEO guy decided he doesn't like the way Open Source works?
Bye. Don't let the door hit you in the ass.Michael Scharf, a member of the Eclipse Foundation's architecture councilOK, that's one.So this article picked two business weenies to flesh out their claims that the community is pissed off about Open Source software being Open Source software, based on a single actual technologist's gasbag blog post.Nothing to see here.
Move on.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167567</id>
	<title>freeloading? please..</title>
	<author>pak9rabid</author>
	<datestamp>1243869120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>InfoWorld reports on the fight over open source 'leeches' -- companies that use open source technology but don't give back to the open source community.</p></div><p>That's bullshit.  The fact that the FOSS software in question is being used in the first place is a good thing.  By being a user, you find bugs.  In an enterprise environment, those bugs are usually reported back to either the distribution or the upstream project itself in hopes of getting it fixed in a patch later on.  All of this "your a freeloader unless you contribute code or money" mentality needs to go.  It could be worse, you could be the leader of an open source project that nobody even wants to use...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>InfoWorld reports on the fight over open source 'leeches ' -- companies that use open source technology but do n't give back to the open source community.That 's bullshit .
The fact that the FOSS software in question is being used in the first place is a good thing .
By being a user , you find bugs .
In an enterprise environment , those bugs are usually reported back to either the distribution or the upstream project itself in hopes of getting it fixed in a patch later on .
All of this " your a freeloader unless you contribute code or money " mentality needs to go .
It could be worse , you could be the leader of an open source project that nobody even wants to use.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>InfoWorld reports on the fight over open source 'leeches' -- companies that use open source technology but don't give back to the open source community.That's bullshit.
The fact that the FOSS software in question is being used in the first place is a good thing.
By being a user, you find bugs.
In an enterprise environment, those bugs are usually reported back to either the distribution or the upstream project itself in hopes of getting it fixed in a patch later on.
All of this "your a freeloader unless you contribute code or money" mentality needs to go.
It could be worse, you could be the leader of an open source project that nobody even wants to use...
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28169893</id>
	<title>Re:Of course they *should*...</title>
	<author>Hilltopperpete</author>
	<datestamp>1243879080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>A Raleigh, NC-based firm, Relevance, Inc. (who I am using for my entrepreneurial venture), has "Open Source Fridays" where all of their employees take the day to work on open source.  It makes for much better employees, as they often end up using the very patches they help write, and they can best utilize the nuances of languages they put careful study into.  Justin Gehtland is CEO-- he wrote "Pragmatic Ajax", "Rails of Java Developers", the Ajax section of "ADWR", and won a Jolt Award for coauthoring "Better, Faster, Lighter Java".  Relevance has a number of employees who collaborate on major pragmatic books or even conceive and execute themselves, like Stuart Halloway's "Programming Clojure".  The benefit of working hard in open source is that your employees become incredible programmers.  Here's some books by people on staff: <a href="http://thinkrelevance.com/books" title="thinkrelevance.com" rel="nofollow">http://thinkrelevance.com/books</a> [thinkrelevance.com]

Here's a link to their work on open source:
<a href="http://thinkrelevance.com/open-source" title="thinkrelevance.com" rel="nofollow">http://thinkrelevance.com/open-source</a> [thinkrelevance.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>A Raleigh , NC-based firm , Relevance , Inc. ( who I am using for my entrepreneurial venture ) , has " Open Source Fridays " where all of their employees take the day to work on open source .
It makes for much better employees , as they often end up using the very patches they help write , and they can best utilize the nuances of languages they put careful study into .
Justin Gehtland is CEO-- he wrote " Pragmatic Ajax " , " Rails of Java Developers " , the Ajax section of " ADWR " , and won a Jolt Award for coauthoring " Better , Faster , Lighter Java " .
Relevance has a number of employees who collaborate on major pragmatic books or even conceive and execute themselves , like Stuart Halloway 's " Programming Clojure " .
The benefit of working hard in open source is that your employees become incredible programmers .
Here 's some books by people on staff : http : //thinkrelevance.com/books [ thinkrelevance.com ] Here 's a link to their work on open source : http : //thinkrelevance.com/open-source [ thinkrelevance.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A Raleigh, NC-based firm, Relevance, Inc. (who I am using for my entrepreneurial venture), has "Open Source Fridays" where all of their employees take the day to work on open source.
It makes for much better employees, as they often end up using the very patches they help write, and they can best utilize the nuances of languages they put careful study into.
Justin Gehtland is CEO-- he wrote "Pragmatic Ajax", "Rails of Java Developers", the Ajax section of "ADWR", and won a Jolt Award for coauthoring "Better, Faster, Lighter Java".
Relevance has a number of employees who collaborate on major pragmatic books or even conceive and execute themselves, like Stuart Halloway's "Programming Clojure".
The benefit of working hard in open source is that your employees become incredible programmers.
Here's some books by people on staff: http://thinkrelevance.com/books [thinkrelevance.com]

Here's a link to their work on open source:
http://thinkrelevance.com/open-source [thinkrelevance.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167075</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167553</id>
	<title>Re:Just To Be Clear...</title>
	<author>CHJacobsen</author>
	<datestamp>1243869060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The <i>Free</i> Open Source Software community, that builds <i>free</i>, open source software, is complaining that they are not, in one way or another, being another compensated for their <i>free</i> software?</p></div><p>It's still free as in speech, not free as in beer. I can see your point, but you are really comparing apples to oranges.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Free Open Source Software community , that builds free , open source software , is complaining that they are not , in one way or another , being another compensated for their free software ? It 's still free as in speech , not free as in beer .
I can see your point , but you are really comparing apples to oranges .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Free Open Source Software community, that builds free, open source software, is complaining that they are not, in one way or another, being another compensated for their free software?It's still free as in speech, not free as in beer.
I can see your point, but you are really comparing apples to oranges.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167087</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167487</id>
	<title>Re:Call me an idiot but...</title>
	<author>nitio</author>
	<datestamp>1243868820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, to put it simply you are not very smart. Obviously in your contract it states that every code (or anything for that matter) that you created in the company was IP for the company but nothing prevented you from taking the idea to a next level say have the process well defined and work with the community to develop it. Maybe discuss more the benefits, that you were already doing the same with other tools and that maybe, just maybe, that could make the company have a better image in front of the community<br>
<br>I belive we must stand for what we believe when what's being asked from us goes against it or to harm it but as far as I can tell you just acted like a snotty kid who had his precious toy taken away. Congratulations on losing a job based on that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , to put it simply you are not very smart .
Obviously in your contract it states that every code ( or anything for that matter ) that you created in the company was IP for the company but nothing prevented you from taking the idea to a next level say have the process well defined and work with the community to develop it .
Maybe discuss more the benefits , that you were already doing the same with other tools and that maybe , just maybe , that could make the company have a better image in front of the community I belive we must stand for what we believe when what 's being asked from us goes against it or to harm it but as far as I can tell you just acted like a snotty kid who had his precious toy taken away .
Congratulations on losing a job based on that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, to put it simply you are not very smart.
Obviously in your contract it states that every code (or anything for that matter) that you created in the company was IP for the company but nothing prevented you from taking the idea to a next level say have the process well defined and work with the community to develop it.
Maybe discuss more the benefits, that you were already doing the same with other tools and that maybe, just maybe, that could make the company have a better image in front of the community
I belive we must stand for what we believe when what's being asked from us goes against it or to harm it but as far as I can tell you just acted like a snotty kid who had his precious toy taken away.
Congratulations on losing a job based on that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167173</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28170711</id>
	<title>Re:Here's What You Can Do</title>
	<author>ThrowAwaySociety</author>
	<datestamp>1243883280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Firstly, I'm not a manager,  middle or otherwise, but I'll play along anyway.</p><p>How am I supposed to justify the time and/or company resources to my "upper middle" managers? Maybe it'll make the company look good (that's why companies have "a way of making charitable contributions.") So if your company is in the software or consulting business, it might make sense to get your name out in the community. But if your company is, say, a bank, a restaurant chain, or a manufacturer of water pumps, how do you justify your use of company resources to help with some software project?</p><p>As far as the "All take and no give just makes you a jerk" argument...you really are new to the corporate world, aren't you? Companies don't give out of the kindness of their hearts. They do it to improve their image. And donating to the save-the-baby-whales fund improves image much better than the improve-the-free-software foundation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Firstly , I 'm not a manager , middle or otherwise , but I 'll play along anyway.How am I supposed to justify the time and/or company resources to my " upper middle " managers ?
Maybe it 'll make the company look good ( that 's why companies have " a way of making charitable contributions .
" ) So if your company is in the software or consulting business , it might make sense to get your name out in the community .
But if your company is , say , a bank , a restaurant chain , or a manufacturer of water pumps , how do you justify your use of company resources to help with some software project ? As far as the " All take and no give just makes you a jerk " argument...you really are new to the corporate world , are n't you ?
Companies do n't give out of the kindness of their hearts .
They do it to improve their image .
And donating to the save-the-baby-whales fund improves image much better than the improve-the-free-software foundation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firstly, I'm not a manager,  middle or otherwise, but I'll play along anyway.How am I supposed to justify the time and/or company resources to my "upper middle" managers?
Maybe it'll make the company look good (that's why companies have "a way of making charitable contributions.
") So if your company is in the software or consulting business, it might make sense to get your name out in the community.
But if your company is, say, a bank, a restaurant chain, or a manufacturer of water pumps, how do you justify your use of company resources to help with some software project?As far as the "All take and no give just makes you a jerk" argument...you really are new to the corporate world, aren't you?
Companies don't give out of the kindness of their hearts.
They do it to improve their image.
And donating to the save-the-baby-whales fund improves image much better than the improve-the-free-software foundation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28168841</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28169503</id>
	<title>stop embarrassing me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243877280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wear a tie. I work with companies that have to make a payroll every 2nd thursday.</p><p>Most of the comments in here are by 15 year old boys or 45 year old men who have lost their job and their wife.</p><p>GPLv3 was a travesty, it destroyed the credibility of the FSF.</p><p>Affero is even worse, it's an attempt to get a party to undertake unconscionable terms.</p><p>open source is about eliminating a troll tax on the most common infrastructure, like apache and mysql. You can impose a more "aggressive" license, but you will then lose mindshare.</p><p>I was working on a project with 2 other contractors. One of them tried to use the gpl only for his contributions. He was hit with an injunction within 2 days, and is now blacklisted all over town (I won't reveal my town as I don't want to be targeted by the crazies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wear a tie .
I work with companies that have to make a payroll every 2nd thursday.Most of the comments in here are by 15 year old boys or 45 year old men who have lost their job and their wife.GPLv3 was a travesty , it destroyed the credibility of the FSF.Affero is even worse , it 's an attempt to get a party to undertake unconscionable terms.open source is about eliminating a troll tax on the most common infrastructure , like apache and mysql .
You can impose a more " aggressive " license , but you will then lose mindshare.I was working on a project with 2 other contractors .
One of them tried to use the gpl only for his contributions .
He was hit with an injunction within 2 days , and is now blacklisted all over town ( I wo n't reveal my town as I do n't want to be targeted by the crazies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wear a tie.
I work with companies that have to make a payroll every 2nd thursday.Most of the comments in here are by 15 year old boys or 45 year old men who have lost their job and their wife.GPLv3 was a travesty, it destroyed the credibility of the FSF.Affero is even worse, it's an attempt to get a party to undertake unconscionable terms.open source is about eliminating a troll tax on the most common infrastructure, like apache and mysql.
You can impose a more "aggressive" license, but you will then lose mindshare.I was working on a project with 2 other contractors.
One of them tried to use the gpl only for his contributions.
He was hit with an injunction within 2 days, and is now blacklisted all over town (I won't reveal my town as I don't want to be targeted by the crazies.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28172751</id>
	<title>Re:Of course they *should*...</title>
	<author>Darinbob</author>
	<datestamp>1243847400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The entire point of freeware (Free Ware, Open Source, whatever the term of the decade is) was not to require payment or other obligations.  It was to share the software.  Just like you don't pay money for the source code, you are also not required to pay back in karma points either.  This is not like the old system that some BBSes used where you were required to have the proper upload to download ratio before you could view files.  Instead the software is for customers to use.  This means ALL customers, not just those that agree with your political and social viewpoints.<br><br>This includes corporations who use Open Office merely to save some money, the same as me using Open Office because I don't want to pay for a commercial product.  If I am allowed to use the Linux kernel for my home hobby project, then it is fair for companies to use Linux kernel to save themselves some effort at production creation.  It is a good thing that free software is in wide use, that more eyeballs are viewing it, and that the old myth of "not robust enough to leave the hobbyist world" is vanishing.<br><br>Requiring a particular social viewpoint or agreement with a manifesto is just as bad as requiring an NDA or payment before using the software.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The entire point of freeware ( Free Ware , Open Source , whatever the term of the decade is ) was not to require payment or other obligations .
It was to share the software .
Just like you do n't pay money for the source code , you are also not required to pay back in karma points either .
This is not like the old system that some BBSes used where you were required to have the proper upload to download ratio before you could view files .
Instead the software is for customers to use .
This means ALL customers , not just those that agree with your political and social viewpoints.This includes corporations who use Open Office merely to save some money , the same as me using Open Office because I do n't want to pay for a commercial product .
If I am allowed to use the Linux kernel for my home hobby project , then it is fair for companies to use Linux kernel to save themselves some effort at production creation .
It is a good thing that free software is in wide use , that more eyeballs are viewing it , and that the old myth of " not robust enough to leave the hobbyist world " is vanishing.Requiring a particular social viewpoint or agreement with a manifesto is just as bad as requiring an NDA or payment before using the software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The entire point of freeware (Free Ware, Open Source, whatever the term of the decade is) was not to require payment or other obligations.
It was to share the software.
Just like you don't pay money for the source code, you are also not required to pay back in karma points either.
This is not like the old system that some BBSes used where you were required to have the proper upload to download ratio before you could view files.
Instead the software is for customers to use.
This means ALL customers, not just those that agree with your political and social viewpoints.This includes corporations who use Open Office merely to save some money, the same as me using Open Office because I don't want to pay for a commercial product.
If I am allowed to use the Linux kernel for my home hobby project, then it is fair for companies to use Linux kernel to save themselves some effort at production creation.
It is a good thing that free software is in wide use, that more eyeballs are viewing it, and that the old myth of "not robust enough to leave the hobbyist world" is vanishing.Requiring a particular social viewpoint or agreement with a manifesto is just as bad as requiring an NDA or payment before using the software.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167075</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28170063</id>
	<title>An analogy</title>
	<author>Runaway1956</author>
	<datestamp>1243879980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are 50 people on the worksite.  One of those people often brings donuts, candy, or some such snack to share with workmates. Let's say this person does so once a week.  Two other people bring such things less often - let's say twice a month.  Another 10 people bring snacks occasionally - let's say once a month on average.</p><p>This is "open source" kinda.  People giving to people, because they enjoy doing so, and they benefit from the camaraderie, and perhaps they enjoy some invisible "perks", such as the boss allows them time off when they ask.</p><p>So - the OTHER 37 people - should they be required to "give something back"?</p><p>Ehh, I feel like maybe they should, to "the best of their ability".  One of them is a single mom, with three kids.  SHE CAN'T AFFORD to repay her coworkers in kind.  She MIGHT find the money to bring some home-baked goodies once in awhile, but the kids are more likely to snatch the goodies while they're hot, and they never make it to work.</p><p>How about the junior people, who may or may not have the responsibility of our single mom, but just don't make as much money?  Do they "owe" their coworkers?  Maybe, but just maybe some of them ARE repaying in a manner that just isn't recognized.  Ask a favor of the doofus looking mail clerk, and he never says "no" or makes excuses - despite the fact that the favor is way outside his job description and responsibility.</p><p>Yeah, there are probably a couple greedy SOB's who routinely scarf down the free goodies, and never do anything to repay their coworkers.  And, everybody probably knows who they are.  But, what do you do about them?  You can ostracize them - to a point.  They'll still be your coworkers, you have to get along with them.</p><p>Best solution is probably to ignore their antisocial behaviour.  It doesn't REALLY detract from anyone else's life, does it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are 50 people on the worksite .
One of those people often brings donuts , candy , or some such snack to share with workmates .
Let 's say this person does so once a week .
Two other people bring such things less often - let 's say twice a month .
Another 10 people bring snacks occasionally - let 's say once a month on average.This is " open source " kinda .
People giving to people , because they enjoy doing so , and they benefit from the camaraderie , and perhaps they enjoy some invisible " perks " , such as the boss allows them time off when they ask.So - the OTHER 37 people - should they be required to " give something back " ? Ehh , I feel like maybe they should , to " the best of their ability " .
One of them is a single mom , with three kids .
SHE CA N'T AFFORD to repay her coworkers in kind .
She MIGHT find the money to bring some home-baked goodies once in awhile , but the kids are more likely to snatch the goodies while they 're hot , and they never make it to work.How about the junior people , who may or may not have the responsibility of our single mom , but just do n't make as much money ?
Do they " owe " their coworkers ?
Maybe , but just maybe some of them ARE repaying in a manner that just is n't recognized .
Ask a favor of the doofus looking mail clerk , and he never says " no " or makes excuses - despite the fact that the favor is way outside his job description and responsibility.Yeah , there are probably a couple greedy SOB 's who routinely scarf down the free goodies , and never do anything to repay their coworkers .
And , everybody probably knows who they are .
But , what do you do about them ?
You can ostracize them - to a point .
They 'll still be your coworkers , you have to get along with them.Best solution is probably to ignore their antisocial behaviour .
It does n't REALLY detract from anyone else 's life , does it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are 50 people on the worksite.
One of those people often brings donuts, candy, or some such snack to share with workmates.
Let's say this person does so once a week.
Two other people bring such things less often - let's say twice a month.
Another 10 people bring snacks occasionally - let's say once a month on average.This is "open source" kinda.
People giving to people, because they enjoy doing so, and they benefit from the camaraderie, and perhaps they enjoy some invisible "perks", such as the boss allows them time off when they ask.So - the OTHER 37 people - should they be required to "give something back"?Ehh, I feel like maybe they should, to "the best of their ability".
One of them is a single mom, with three kids.
SHE CAN'T AFFORD to repay her coworkers in kind.
She MIGHT find the money to bring some home-baked goodies once in awhile, but the kids are more likely to snatch the goodies while they're hot, and they never make it to work.How about the junior people, who may or may not have the responsibility of our single mom, but just don't make as much money?
Do they "owe" their coworkers?
Maybe, but just maybe some of them ARE repaying in a manner that just isn't recognized.
Ask a favor of the doofus looking mail clerk, and he never says "no" or makes excuses - despite the fact that the favor is way outside his job description and responsibility.Yeah, there are probably a couple greedy SOB's who routinely scarf down the free goodies, and never do anything to repay their coworkers.
And, everybody probably knows who they are.
But, what do you do about them?
You can ostracize them - to a point.
They'll still be your coworkers, you have to get along with them.Best solution is probably to ignore their antisocial behaviour.
It doesn't REALLY detract from anyone else's life, does it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28168389</id>
	<title>Re:not entirely true</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243872480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>so you outsourced to the contributors (the support people). Good for everyone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>so you outsourced to the contributors ( the support people ) .
Good for everyone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>so you outsourced to the contributors (the support people).
Good for everyone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167113</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167903</id>
	<title>Re:But some software is more free than others</title>
	<author>UnRDJ</author>
	<datestamp>1243870500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> everyone who uses free software must give<br>back changes they make to the code, because that was the deal in the first place.</p></div><p>That's what my little GPL-firmly-believing voice says.  Perhaps I'm not fervorish enough for the masses?</p><p>
&nbsp; <br>Regardless of how one might define "free," I like these stipulations and would release code under them.  Call it derpaderpasource software if you want, I'd still feel the same way about the underlying meaning</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>everyone who uses free software must giveback changes they make to the code , because that was the deal in the first place.That 's what my little GPL-firmly-believing voice says .
Perhaps I 'm not fervorish enough for the masses ?
  Regardless of how one might define " free , " I like these stipulations and would release code under them .
Call it derpaderpasource software if you want , I 'd still feel the same way about the underlying meaning</tokentext>
<sentencetext> everyone who uses free software must giveback changes they make to the code, because that was the deal in the first place.That's what my little GPL-firmly-believing voice says.
Perhaps I'm not fervorish enough for the masses?
  Regardless of how one might define "free," I like these stipulations and would release code under them.
Call it derpaderpasource software if you want, I'd still feel the same way about the underlying meaning
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167089</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167597</id>
	<title>As long as they comply with the licencing</title>
	<author>OriginalSolver</author>
	<datestamp>1243869180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've been a member of the open source community for 15 years (back before we call it open source of course).  My position is that they are required to comply with the licencing, nothing more nothing less.  Yes it would be nice if they did more but I don't think it is appropriate for us to complain that they didn't do more than we asked of them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been a member of the open source community for 15 years ( back before we call it open source of course ) .
My position is that they are required to comply with the licencing , nothing more nothing less .
Yes it would be nice if they did more but I do n't think it is appropriate for us to complain that they did n't do more than we asked of them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been a member of the open source community for 15 years (back before we call it open source of course).
My position is that they are required to comply with the licencing, nothing more nothing less.
Yes it would be nice if they did more but I don't think it is appropriate for us to complain that they didn't do more than we asked of them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28182415</id>
	<title>Re:Just To Be Clear...</title>
	<author>G Morgan</author>
	<datestamp>1243958100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you need to be very careful when talking about 'paying back as much as you get'. It is very easy to underestimate even what a small contribution is worth. If somebody improves the kernel then that fix potentially benefits millions. The correct measure of contribution is not simply how much of the code base was improved but that multiplied by how many people it benefited. For clearly it is absurd to expect a company to contribute back the value it received to countless other people. Such a thing would be contributing millions of times more than you received.</p><p>Anyway that is how I would look at it. Measure benefit to the company as number of lines of code* used multiplied by the number of deployments. Measure contributions by a similar measure of number of lines contributed multiplied by the number of people using it. It is clear that even tiny amounts of contributions can easily outstrip what you've used yourself.</p><p>*I realise that LOC is not a good measure in practice. The concept still stands though. It is work contributed multiplied by the number of times it is used that matters in both directions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you need to be very careful when talking about 'paying back as much as you get' .
It is very easy to underestimate even what a small contribution is worth .
If somebody improves the kernel then that fix potentially benefits millions .
The correct measure of contribution is not simply how much of the code base was improved but that multiplied by how many people it benefited .
For clearly it is absurd to expect a company to contribute back the value it received to countless other people .
Such a thing would be contributing millions of times more than you received.Anyway that is how I would look at it .
Measure benefit to the company as number of lines of code * used multiplied by the number of deployments .
Measure contributions by a similar measure of number of lines contributed multiplied by the number of people using it .
It is clear that even tiny amounts of contributions can easily outstrip what you 've used yourself .
* I realise that LOC is not a good measure in practice .
The concept still stands though .
It is work contributed multiplied by the number of times it is used that matters in both directions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you need to be very careful when talking about 'paying back as much as you get'.
It is very easy to underestimate even what a small contribution is worth.
If somebody improves the kernel then that fix potentially benefits millions.
The correct measure of contribution is not simply how much of the code base was improved but that multiplied by how many people it benefited.
For clearly it is absurd to expect a company to contribute back the value it received to countless other people.
Such a thing would be contributing millions of times more than you received.Anyway that is how I would look at it.
Measure benefit to the company as number of lines of code* used multiplied by the number of deployments.
Measure contributions by a similar measure of number of lines contributed multiplied by the number of people using it.
It is clear that even tiny amounts of contributions can easily outstrip what you've used yourself.
*I realise that LOC is not a good measure in practice.
The concept still stands though.
It is work contributed multiplied by the number of times it is used that matters in both directions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167405</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28171229</id>
	<title>The biggest obstacle - large company bureaucracy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243885200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I work for a very very large (Fortune 500) tech company, and we use tons of open source. My team (and many others thoughout the company) have been pushing for us to contribute to open source. The big problem is that at every stage you bump into the inevitable bureaucracy inherit in a large company, from the legal department concerned about IP, to management figuring out who will do it or what will the limits be, to the managers who want to put a process on all work their developers and their readiness to take people off open source projects and put them on projects that "bring in revenue". There are obviously arguments against all of these, but unless you are a holy warrior and push it all the time, many people just give up. I mean, we can't even get a member on a W3C committee because no one wants to take responsibility.

<p>That said, things are changing, though slowly. We have started an internal open source endeavor to start people thinking about sharing (the company notoriously reinvents the wheel all over the place). Hopefully later people will understand that and understand what it can do for a big company and then start contributing to public projects.

</p><p>So while I think things will improve, my point is that large enterprise companies have many obstacles to overcome to allow their developers to contribute to open source and unless you have people who really push it, many developers manage to leap over a few hurdles only to be tired down by all of them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I work for a very very large ( Fortune 500 ) tech company , and we use tons of open source .
My team ( and many others thoughout the company ) have been pushing for us to contribute to open source .
The big problem is that at every stage you bump into the inevitable bureaucracy inherit in a large company , from the legal department concerned about IP , to management figuring out who will do it or what will the limits be , to the managers who want to put a process on all work their developers and their readiness to take people off open source projects and put them on projects that " bring in revenue " .
There are obviously arguments against all of these , but unless you are a holy warrior and push it all the time , many people just give up .
I mean , we ca n't even get a member on a W3C committee because no one wants to take responsibility .
That said , things are changing , though slowly .
We have started an internal open source endeavor to start people thinking about sharing ( the company notoriously reinvents the wheel all over the place ) .
Hopefully later people will understand that and understand what it can do for a big company and then start contributing to public projects .
So while I think things will improve , my point is that large enterprise companies have many obstacles to overcome to allow their developers to contribute to open source and unless you have people who really push it , many developers manage to leap over a few hurdles only to be tired down by all of them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I work for a very very large (Fortune 500) tech company, and we use tons of open source.
My team (and many others thoughout the company) have been pushing for us to contribute to open source.
The big problem is that at every stage you bump into the inevitable bureaucracy inherit in a large company, from the legal department concerned about IP, to management figuring out who will do it or what will the limits be, to the managers who want to put a process on all work their developers and their readiness to take people off open source projects and put them on projects that "bring in revenue".
There are obviously arguments against all of these, but unless you are a holy warrior and push it all the time, many people just give up.
I mean, we can't even get a member on a W3C committee because no one wants to take responsibility.
That said, things are changing, though slowly.
We have started an internal open source endeavor to start people thinking about sharing (the company notoriously reinvents the wheel all over the place).
Hopefully later people will understand that and understand what it can do for a big company and then start contributing to public projects.
So while I think things will improve, my point is that large enterprise companies have many obstacles to overcome to allow their developers to contribute to open source and unless you have people who really push it, many developers manage to leap over a few hurdles only to be tired down by all of them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167425</id>
	<title>Re:Of course they *should*...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243868460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They don't need to make a large contribution. Just filing bug reports can be a big help. Even better would be to write patches to fix them but a lot of these people aren't programmers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They do n't need to make a large contribution .
Just filing bug reports can be a big help .
Even better would be to write patches to fix them but a lot of these people are n't programmers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They don't need to make a large contribution.
Just filing bug reports can be a big help.
Even better would be to write patches to fix them but a lot of these people aren't programmers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167075</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28171225</id>
	<title>View point</title>
	<author>dilvish\_the\_damned</author>
	<datestamp>1243885200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Open Source would work great if it weren't for those damned users.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Open Source would work great if it were n't for those damned users .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Open Source would work great if it weren't for those damned users.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28168543</id>
	<title>Re:But some software is more free than others</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243873200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; You can never force people to contribute to FOSS.<br>Yes you can. It's call GPL.<br>&gt; A good number of Kernel developers are getting paid by Red Hat, IBM, and Novell. Imagine that they are getting paid by companies that sell software and at in the case of IBM hardware.<br>Do you honestly think that without the GPL companies bother to hire people to contribute to Linux?<br>&gt; Firefox developers are getting paid by Google search. Yes Firefox makes money from... Advertising!<br>So what? Who said you can't make FOSS and money at the same time?<br>&gt; OpenOffice developers are getting paid by Sun because Sun really hated Microsoft.<br>At the end of the day, people still contributes to FOSS irrespective of the motive. So what's your point here?</p><p>&gt; This is why FOSS will never be the only model for software development.<br>Not yet.</p><p>The way I see it is that software is approaching a zero sum game. There's more money to be made in selling services and supports and other ideas around software instead of COTS software like Windows.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; You can never force people to contribute to FOSS.Yes you can .
It 's call GPL. &gt; A good number of Kernel developers are getting paid by Red Hat , IBM , and Novell .
Imagine that they are getting paid by companies that sell software and at in the case of IBM hardware.Do you honestly think that without the GPL companies bother to hire people to contribute to Linux ? &gt; Firefox developers are getting paid by Google search .
Yes Firefox makes money from... Advertising ! So what ?
Who said you ca n't make FOSS and money at the same time ? &gt; OpenOffice developers are getting paid by Sun because Sun really hated Microsoft.At the end of the day , people still contributes to FOSS irrespective of the motive .
So what 's your point here ? &gt; This is why FOSS will never be the only model for software development.Not yet.The way I see it is that software is approaching a zero sum game .
There 's more money to be made in selling services and supports and other ideas around software instead of COTS software like Windows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; You can never force people to contribute to FOSS.Yes you can.
It's call GPL.&gt; A good number of Kernel developers are getting paid by Red Hat, IBM, and Novell.
Imagine that they are getting paid by companies that sell software and at in the case of IBM hardware.Do you honestly think that without the GPL companies bother to hire people to contribute to Linux?&gt; Firefox developers are getting paid by Google search.
Yes Firefox makes money from... Advertising!So what?
Who said you can't make FOSS and money at the same time?&gt; OpenOffice developers are getting paid by Sun because Sun really hated Microsoft.At the end of the day, people still contributes to FOSS irrespective of the motive.
So what's your point here?&gt; This is why FOSS will never be the only model for software development.Not yet.The way I see it is that software is approaching a zero sum game.
There's more money to be made in selling services and supports and other ideas around software instead of COTS software like Windows.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167389</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28169681</id>
	<title>You gave it away for free!</title>
	<author>Brandybuck</author>
	<datestamp>1243878060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You gave it away for free, now stop whining that no one's paying for it!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You gave it away for free , now stop whining that no one 's paying for it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You gave it away for free, now stop whining that no one's paying for it!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28168221</id>
	<title>Re:Just To Be Clear...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243871880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>No, it is generally free in both senses.... Yes they are. They want companies to contribute patches to help develop/maintain these free software packages.</p></div><p>If corporations want to sit at the table and eat for free surely it isn't unreasonable to expect them to help when it comes time to  do the washing up? A friend of mine went to a convention on embedded software and devices some years ago. One of the lectures they gave essentially had the topic: "How to use FOSS software in proprietary products while still 'getting around' the 'problem' of GPL". It's that kind of attitude people in the FOSS community have problem with.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , it is generally free in both senses.... Yes they are .
They want companies to contribute patches to help develop/maintain these free software packages.If corporations want to sit at the table and eat for free surely it is n't unreasonable to expect them to help when it comes time to do the washing up ?
A friend of mine went to a convention on embedded software and devices some years ago .
One of the lectures they gave essentially had the topic : " How to use FOSS software in proprietary products while still 'getting around ' the 'problem ' of GPL " .
It 's that kind of attitude people in the FOSS community have problem with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, it is generally free in both senses.... Yes they are.
They want companies to contribute patches to help develop/maintain these free software packages.If corporations want to sit at the table and eat for free surely it isn't unreasonable to expect them to help when it comes time to  do the washing up?
A friend of mine went to a convention on embedded software and devices some years ago.
One of the lectures they gave essentially had the topic: "How to use FOSS software in proprietary products while still 'getting around' the 'problem' of GPL".
It's that kind of attitude people in the FOSS community have problem with.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167803</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28168141</id>
	<title>Re:Of course they *should*...</title>
	<author>GordonCopestake</author>
	<datestamp>1243871520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dont underestimate the value that a userbase has. A piece of OSS that is fantastic is still useless if it has a negligable userbase. The more users the better the community driven support and the whole thing snowballs. Large companies tend to look for large projects and these large companies are the ones who CAN contribute to the movement. But it all starts with the small guys who can use the thing for free and start the snowball rolling.</p><p>THIS is return that small companies put into OSS</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dont underestimate the value that a userbase has .
A piece of OSS that is fantastic is still useless if it has a negligable userbase .
The more users the better the community driven support and the whole thing snowballs .
Large companies tend to look for large projects and these large companies are the ones who CAN contribute to the movement .
But it all starts with the small guys who can use the thing for free and start the snowball rolling.THIS is return that small companies put into OSS</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dont underestimate the value that a userbase has.
A piece of OSS that is fantastic is still useless if it has a negligable userbase.
The more users the better the community driven support and the whole thing snowballs.
Large companies tend to look for large projects and these large companies are the ones who CAN contribute to the movement.
But it all starts with the small guys who can use the thing for free and start the snowball rolling.THIS is return that small companies put into OSS</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167075</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28169029</id>
	<title>Re:Of course they *should*...</title>
	<author>herksc</author>
	<datestamp>1243875300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Small companies that use open source software are giving back by employing those who administer this software.</p></div><p>
Wish it was possible to mod this higher than 5.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Small companies that use open source software are giving back by employing those who administer this software .
Wish it was possible to mod this higher than 5 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Small companies that use open source software are giving back by employing those who administer this software.
Wish it was possible to mod this higher than 5.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167345</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167673</id>
	<title>As long as they don't modify the source!</title>
	<author>Lord Byron II</author>
	<datestamp>1243869480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most open source licenses say that as long as you don't modify the source, you don't have to contribute.</p><p>As long as companies are obeying the license agreement, then why complain?</p><p>I would say that as long as they obey the terms of the license agreement (and whether or not they contribute themselves) then this is a win for open source software.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most open source licenses say that as long as you do n't modify the source , you do n't have to contribute.As long as companies are obeying the license agreement , then why complain ? I would say that as long as they obey the terms of the license agreement ( and whether or not they contribute themselves ) then this is a win for open source software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most open source licenses say that as long as you don't modify the source, you don't have to contribute.As long as companies are obeying the license agreement, then why complain?I would say that as long as they obey the terms of the license agreement (and whether or not they contribute themselves) then this is a win for open source software.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28169797</id>
	<title>Business 101</title>
	<author>micromuncher</author>
	<datestamp>1243878600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People need to ask the question, what is the business driver for an enterprise to spend money on OpenSource?  The argument will be, enterprise will likely be a consumer only of the product, because there is no value to the business in spending money on enhancing any OpenSource project because its likely not a competency of said company.  Restated; why should a big energy company invest in mysql's development?    They're a consumer, not a producer of said technology.  Now... if said big company needs to fix some glitch in an OpenSource project; well; they're obliged by license to contribute.  But very few big companies have the internal expertise to do that [because again, they're probably not in that business.]</p><p>So its really a battle for mindshare and credibility.  If you have an enterprise using OpenSource, it justifies its existence, and the spin off consulting to actual OpenSource champions/contributors is where the money is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People need to ask the question , what is the business driver for an enterprise to spend money on OpenSource ?
The argument will be , enterprise will likely be a consumer only of the product , because there is no value to the business in spending money on enhancing any OpenSource project because its likely not a competency of said company .
Restated ; why should a big energy company invest in mysql 's development ?
They 're a consumer , not a producer of said technology .
Now... if said big company needs to fix some glitch in an OpenSource project ; well ; they 're obliged by license to contribute .
But very few big companies have the internal expertise to do that [ because again , they 're probably not in that business .
] So its really a battle for mindshare and credibility .
If you have an enterprise using OpenSource , it justifies its existence , and the spin off consulting to actual OpenSource champions/contributors is where the money is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People need to ask the question, what is the business driver for an enterprise to spend money on OpenSource?
The argument will be, enterprise will likely be a consumer only of the product, because there is no value to the business in spending money on enhancing any OpenSource project because its likely not a competency of said company.
Restated; why should a big energy company invest in mysql's development?
They're a consumer, not a producer of said technology.
Now... if said big company needs to fix some glitch in an OpenSource project; well; they're obliged by license to contribute.
But very few big companies have the internal expertise to do that [because again, they're probably not in that business.
]So its really a battle for mindshare and credibility.
If you have an enterprise using OpenSource, it justifies its existence, and the spin off consulting to actual OpenSource champions/contributors is where the money is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28171801</id>
	<title>Who is the leach?</title>
	<author>bgspence</author>
	<datestamp>1243887240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So you put out a bit of code thats close to what I need. You say it is freely given with a few conditions. I need something similar, so I clean it up, make it usable for my needs and fix some bugs. And, now you say you want to take my work?</p><p>Who is the leach? As long as I comply with your conditions, I have no moral reason to give my work away.</p><p>Don't tell me how to give gifts. You second-handers need buy your own copies of Ayn Rand.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So you put out a bit of code thats close to what I need .
You say it is freely given with a few conditions .
I need something similar , so I clean it up , make it usable for my needs and fix some bugs .
And , now you say you want to take my work ? Who is the leach ?
As long as I comply with your conditions , I have no moral reason to give my work away.Do n't tell me how to give gifts .
You second-handers need buy your own copies of Ayn Rand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you put out a bit of code thats close to what I need.
You say it is freely given with a few conditions.
I need something similar, so I clean it up, make it usable for my needs and fix some bugs.
And, now you say you want to take my work?Who is the leach?
As long as I comply with your conditions, I have no moral reason to give my work away.Don't tell me how to give gifts.
You second-handers need buy your own copies of Ayn Rand.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167707</id>
	<title>Re:No they shouldn't...</title>
	<author>Mr. Slippery</author>
	<datestamp>1243869720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <i>There should be no compulsion to contribute, as the freedom to choose to contribute or not *must* be one of the fundamental freedoms in Open Source.</i></p></div> </blockquote><p>If you're using imperfect software -- i.e., any real software -- but you have source, and you are a large IT enterprise, then you have the motive, method, and opportunity to make fixes.

</p><p>If you don't contribute those changes back to the community, those changes won't be rolled into the next version.

</p><p>So if you're making fixes to free software, it's in your own interest to contribute them back. That's the compulsion to contribute -- rational self interest.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There should be no compulsion to contribute , as the freedom to choose to contribute or not * must * be one of the fundamental freedoms in Open Source .
If you 're using imperfect software -- i.e. , any real software -- but you have source , and you are a large IT enterprise , then you have the motive , method , and opportunity to make fixes .
If you do n't contribute those changes back to the community , those changes wo n't be rolled into the next version .
So if you 're making fixes to free software , it 's in your own interest to contribute them back .
That 's the compulsion to contribute -- rational self interest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> There should be no compulsion to contribute, as the freedom to choose to contribute or not *must* be one of the fundamental freedoms in Open Source.
If you're using imperfect software -- i.e., any real software -- but you have source, and you are a large IT enterprise, then you have the motive, method, and opportunity to make fixes.
If you don't contribute those changes back to the community, those changes won't be rolled into the next version.
So if you're making fixes to free software, it's in your own interest to contribute them back.
That's the compulsion to contribute -- rational self interest.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167121</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28170021</id>
	<title>Re:But some software is more free than others</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243879740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What if you are incapable of returning changes?  Do you really want my brother in law who works on a assembly line who has 0 clue how to code or write docs to contribute?</p><p>ALL he wants to do is surf the web and listen to some tunes...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What if you are incapable of returning changes ?
Do you really want my brother in law who works on a assembly line who has 0 clue how to code or write docs to contribute ? ALL he wants to do is surf the web and listen to some tunes.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What if you are incapable of returning changes?
Do you really want my brother in law who works on a assembly line who has 0 clue how to code or write docs to contribute?ALL he wants to do is surf the web and listen to some tunes...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167379</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167095</id>
	<title>It's in the rules</title>
	<author>91degrees</author>
	<datestamp>1243866960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you don't like people using your code, then don't release it under a licence that allows people to use it without giving back.  <br> <br>
If you don't like people using stuff that your "community" created, what gives you the right to say how other people should let their code be used?<br> <br>
What harm is done if they don't give back to the community?  Failing to do so does no harm to the resource.  It doesn't benefit it either but neither does using a closed source solution.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you do n't like people using your code , then do n't release it under a licence that allows people to use it without giving back .
If you do n't like people using stuff that your " community " created , what gives you the right to say how other people should let their code be used ?
What harm is done if they do n't give back to the community ?
Failing to do so does no harm to the resource .
It does n't benefit it either but neither does using a closed source solution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you don't like people using your code, then don't release it under a licence that allows people to use it without giving back.
If you don't like people using stuff that your "community" created, what gives you the right to say how other people should let their code be used?
What harm is done if they don't give back to the community?
Failing to do so does no harm to the resource.
It doesn't benefit it either but neither does using a closed source solution.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28169185</id>
	<title>Re:Of course they *should*...</title>
	<author>Z00L00K</author>
	<datestamp>1243875900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In a large company there may be employees that uses their own time to contribute to OSS without labeling the code as originating from "BigCompany" since that would make it obvious that they are working with things that they shouldn't.</p><p>But on the other hand - such employees gains experience, which is good for the company.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In a large company there may be employees that uses their own time to contribute to OSS without labeling the code as originating from " BigCompany " since that would make it obvious that they are working with things that they should n't.But on the other hand - such employees gains experience , which is good for the company .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In a large company there may be employees that uses their own time to contribute to OSS without labeling the code as originating from "BigCompany" since that would make it obvious that they are working with things that they shouldn't.But on the other hand - such employees gains experience, which is good for the company.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167075</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28170183</id>
	<title>Re:Linux kernel under Affero GPLv3 license</title>
	<author>SuperQ</author>
	<datestamp>1243880580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So doing things like paying Andrew Morton to work on the kernel, and contributing patches isn't giving back to you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So doing things like paying Andrew Morton to work on the kernel , and contributing patches is n't giving back to you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So doing things like paying Andrew Morton to work on the kernel, and contributing patches isn't giving back to you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28169071</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28177975</id>
	<title>Re:Call me an idiot but...</title>
	<author>NateTech</author>
	<datestamp>1243880220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's only a difference between quitting and getting fired in your head.  All this talk about "science" in computers, and yet the bank account never lies... last I checked, the IRS Form W-2 is the main method of keeping score in our society.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's only a difference between quitting and getting fired in your head .
All this talk about " science " in computers , and yet the bank account never lies... last I checked , the IRS Form W-2 is the main method of keeping score in our society .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's only a difference between quitting and getting fired in your head.
All this talk about "science" in computers, and yet the bank account never lies... last I checked, the IRS Form W-2 is the main method of keeping score in our society.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167815</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28168097</id>
	<title>Re:Just To Be Clear...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243871280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>The Free Open Source Software community, that builds free, open source software, is complaining that they are not, in one way or another, being another compensated for their free software?</i>
</p><p>Let's also not forget these are the same people who tout OSS's zero purchase cost as one of its biggest advantages over Windows.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Free Open Source Software community , that builds free , open source software , is complaining that they are not , in one way or another , being another compensated for their free software ?
Let 's also not forget these are the same people who tout OSS 's zero purchase cost as one of its biggest advantages over Windows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> The Free Open Source Software community, that builds free, open source software, is complaining that they are not, in one way or another, being another compensated for their free software?
Let's also not forget these are the same people who tout OSS's zero purchase cost as one of its biggest advantages over Windows.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167087</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28168415</id>
	<title>have to != should</title>
	<author>uiuyhn8i8</author>
	<datestamp>1243872540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Interesting how often the morals of single persons doesn't apply anymore when said persons work together in a company. If you are given a gift, or borrow something from a friend, don't you give something back in some form? You don't have to but you do it. Then it should be the same thing for a company. Amazingly simple.<br>

But then again, If you don't have any moral problems with illegally downloading movies, music and games then you will probably apply the same (lack of) morals to this situation. <br>

And working in a company that benefits greatly from open source, my morals demand that we pay back, and we do. Both with money and code. Anything else would be really uncomfortable for me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Interesting how often the morals of single persons does n't apply anymore when said persons work together in a company .
If you are given a gift , or borrow something from a friend , do n't you give something back in some form ?
You do n't have to but you do it .
Then it should be the same thing for a company .
Amazingly simple .
But then again , If you do n't have any moral problems with illegally downloading movies , music and games then you will probably apply the same ( lack of ) morals to this situation .
And working in a company that benefits greatly from open source , my morals demand that we pay back , and we do .
Both with money and code .
Anything else would be really uncomfortable for me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interesting how often the morals of single persons doesn't apply anymore when said persons work together in a company.
If you are given a gift, or borrow something from a friend, don't you give something back in some form?
You don't have to but you do it.
Then it should be the same thing for a company.
Amazingly simple.
But then again, If you don't have any moral problems with illegally downloading movies, music and games then you will probably apply the same (lack of) morals to this situation.
And working in a company that benefits greatly from open source, my morals demand that we pay back, and we do.
Both with money and code.
Anything else would be really uncomfortable for me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28168027</id>
	<title>oh well</title>
	<author>dna\_(c)(tm)(r)</author>
	<datestamp>1243870980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Every once in a while somebody open sources something to gain visibility and once they're known they complain about having to give it away for nothing. That is greedy, you wouldn't probably have sold anything if it weren't free and Free, being a small operation... Make a business plan before releasing anything or have peace with no financial returns.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>calling into question the long-term effect corporate culture will have on the evolution of open source</p></div><p>This is a different thing altogether, corporations ARE greedy and don't have morals, which is a bad thing. And in general it is more poignant as a function of how big the corporation is - or how anonymous the decision makers are, same thing.</p><p>On top of that most such corporations have a strategic horizon of 3 months, when the next reports are published for the stock markets. How do you think the banks and car manufacturers got in the mess they're in?</p><p>I'm all for a free market, but with the responsibility of each player i that market... If you or I would pull such a stunt for an amount of  a few thousand ($|&#226;), jail would be our destination; CEO's frequently are <i>rewarded</i> for failure... That's far more of a problem than one OSS project feeling indignant for missed revenue.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Every once in a while somebody open sources something to gain visibility and once they 're known they complain about having to give it away for nothing .
That is greedy , you would n't probably have sold anything if it were n't free and Free , being a small operation... Make a business plan before releasing anything or have peace with no financial returns.calling into question the long-term effect corporate culture will have on the evolution of open sourceThis is a different thing altogether , corporations ARE greedy and do n't have morals , which is a bad thing .
And in general it is more poignant as a function of how big the corporation is - or how anonymous the decision makers are , same thing.On top of that most such corporations have a strategic horizon of 3 months , when the next reports are published for the stock markets .
How do you think the banks and car manufacturers got in the mess they 're in ? I 'm all for a free market , but with the responsibility of each player i that market... If you or I would pull such a stunt for an amount of a few thousand ( $ |   ) , jail would be our destination ; CEO 's frequently are rewarded for failure... That 's far more of a problem than one OSS project feeling indignant for missed revenue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every once in a while somebody open sources something to gain visibility and once they're known they complain about having to give it away for nothing.
That is greedy, you wouldn't probably have sold anything if it weren't free and Free, being a small operation... Make a business plan before releasing anything or have peace with no financial returns.calling into question the long-term effect corporate culture will have on the evolution of open sourceThis is a different thing altogether, corporations ARE greedy and don't have morals, which is a bad thing.
And in general it is more poignant as a function of how big the corporation is - or how anonymous the decision makers are, same thing.On top of that most such corporations have a strategic horizon of 3 months, when the next reports are published for the stock markets.
How do you think the banks and car manufacturers got in the mess they're in?I'm all for a free market, but with the responsibility of each player i that market... If you or I would pull such a stunt for an amount of  a few thousand ($|â), jail would be our destination; CEO's frequently are rewarded for failure... That's far more of a problem than one OSS project feeling indignant for missed revenue.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28168495</id>
	<title>A decision</title>
	<author>sherriw</author>
	<datestamp>1243872960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I use a ton of free and open source software. I try to 'give back' by creating themes, plugins, and submitting bug reports and suggestions. I recently decided that I would give a donation to my favourites at the end of each year. This is just my decision though- each person needs to make their own choice. If it was mandatory, I wouldn't feel as good about it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I use a ton of free and open source software .
I try to 'give back ' by creating themes , plugins , and submitting bug reports and suggestions .
I recently decided that I would give a donation to my favourites at the end of each year .
This is just my decision though- each person needs to make their own choice .
If it was mandatory , I would n't feel as good about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I use a ton of free and open source software.
I try to 'give back' by creating themes, plugins, and submitting bug reports and suggestions.
I recently decided that I would give a donation to my favourites at the end of each year.
This is just my decision though- each person needs to make their own choice.
If it was mandatory, I wouldn't feel as good about it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28172827</id>
	<title>Re:Of course they *should*...</title>
	<author>apoc.famine</author>
	<datestamp>1243847700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a pie-in-the-sky dream, but how cool would it be if patches accepted into the main trunk could be written off as charitable donations?<br>
&nbsp; <br>(It will never happen, because the mechanics of it would be near impossible to hammer out, and gaming the system would probably be trivial. Plus the corporate software houses would throw money at it to block it. Still it would be cool if this ere possible.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a pie-in-the-sky dream , but how cool would it be if patches accepted into the main trunk could be written off as charitable donations ?
  ( It will never happen , because the mechanics of it would be near impossible to hammer out , and gaming the system would probably be trivial .
Plus the corporate software houses would throw money at it to block it .
Still it would be cool if this ere possible .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a pie-in-the-sky dream, but how cool would it be if patches accepted into the main trunk could be written off as charitable donations?
  (It will never happen, because the mechanics of it would be near impossible to hammer out, and gaming the system would probably be trivial.
Plus the corporate software houses would throw money at it to block it.
Still it would be cool if this ere possible.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167075</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167647</id>
	<title>Giving back is a matter of necessity</title>
	<author>kris</author>
	<datestamp>1243869360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the past ten years I have been working in multiple companies that have had businesses based on open source software. Very often these businesses not only used open source software, but also substantially modified it in order to adjust it to the needs of the enterprise, to make it scale or simply to fix bugs in code that otherwise has been rarely exercised.</p><p>In effect, this created a fork of the software, internally inside the enterprise.</p><p>These changes can be maintained inside the company, binding company ressources, or they can be put back upstream. Code can be part of what differentiates you from other companies, or it can be code that does stuff you do which others do as well - then it is infrastructure code to you. All infrastructure code inside your company you should share as open source quickly and reliably, because that not only improves the code but also shares your cost with others.</p><p>Very often companies do not do that - instead they are maintaining their fork of code internally, failing to integrate changes from the outside into their own fork, and binding valueable development ressources inside the enterprise in reproducing changes from the outside indepently. The reason for that is usually that there is an intellectual property regime which requires clearance of code before it can leave the company, but insufficient staffing for the actual clearance process.</p><p>As the enterprise slowly accumulates and integrates more and more open source projects to maintain their business they are slowly dragged down if they do not manage the process of giving changes back upstream properly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the past ten years I have been working in multiple companies that have had businesses based on open source software .
Very often these businesses not only used open source software , but also substantially modified it in order to adjust it to the needs of the enterprise , to make it scale or simply to fix bugs in code that otherwise has been rarely exercised.In effect , this created a fork of the software , internally inside the enterprise.These changes can be maintained inside the company , binding company ressources , or they can be put back upstream .
Code can be part of what differentiates you from other companies , or it can be code that does stuff you do which others do as well - then it is infrastructure code to you .
All infrastructure code inside your company you should share as open source quickly and reliably , because that not only improves the code but also shares your cost with others.Very often companies do not do that - instead they are maintaining their fork of code internally , failing to integrate changes from the outside into their own fork , and binding valueable development ressources inside the enterprise in reproducing changes from the outside indepently .
The reason for that is usually that there is an intellectual property regime which requires clearance of code before it can leave the company , but insufficient staffing for the actual clearance process.As the enterprise slowly accumulates and integrates more and more open source projects to maintain their business they are slowly dragged down if they do not manage the process of giving changes back upstream properly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the past ten years I have been working in multiple companies that have had businesses based on open source software.
Very often these businesses not only used open source software, but also substantially modified it in order to adjust it to the needs of the enterprise, to make it scale or simply to fix bugs in code that otherwise has been rarely exercised.In effect, this created a fork of the software, internally inside the enterprise.These changes can be maintained inside the company, binding company ressources, or they can be put back upstream.
Code can be part of what differentiates you from other companies, or it can be code that does stuff you do which others do as well - then it is infrastructure code to you.
All infrastructure code inside your company you should share as open source quickly and reliably, because that not only improves the code but also shares your cost with others.Very often companies do not do that - instead they are maintaining their fork of code internally, failing to integrate changes from the outside into their own fork, and binding valueable development ressources inside the enterprise in reproducing changes from the outside indepently.
The reason for that is usually that there is an intellectual property regime which requires clearance of code before it can leave the company, but insufficient staffing for the actual clearance process.As the enterprise slowly accumulates and integrates more and more open source projects to maintain their business they are slowly dragged down if they do not manage the process of giving changes back upstream properly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167635</id>
	<title>Re:missing the point</title>
	<author>klingens</author>
	<datestamp>1243869300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Please reread the GPL until you actually understand it. If I patch GPLed software and use it myself, I don't have to give my patches to anyone, ever.<br>Only if I give a my modified binary to someone, I have to give the source for this binary (which has to include my patches) to this same someone, no one else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please reread the GPL until you actually understand it .
If I patch GPLed software and use it myself , I do n't have to give my patches to anyone , ever.Only if I give a my modified binary to someone , I have to give the source for this binary ( which has to include my patches ) to this same someone , no one else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please reread the GPL until you actually understand it.
If I patch GPLed software and use it myself, I don't have to give my patches to anyone, ever.Only if I give a my modified binary to someone, I have to give the source for this binary (which has to include my patches) to this same someone, no one else.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167395</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28168219</id>
	<title>They already ARE</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243871880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How many billions of dollars is IBM, among other companies, flushing down the drain into open source?</p><p>Guess that doesn't count.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How many billions of dollars is IBM , among other companies , flushing down the drain into open source ? Guess that does n't count .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How many billions of dollars is IBM, among other companies, flushing down the drain into open source?Guess that doesn't count.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167075</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28170441</id>
	<title>BEFORE THIS GETS OUT OF HAND</title>
	<author>CherniyVolk</author>
	<datestamp>1243881840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A company is ONLY obligated in accordance to the GPL or whatever other OSL they agreed to.</p><p>A company, hacker or hobbyist, I personally don't give a damn.  They should make the source available, they should make all modifications available.  They should not charge any more than distribution costs for that portion of software, they have to reflect all past contributors and other claims of participation whether it is explicit copy right, or bragging rights.</p><p>Just because they are a company, we should not stoop to their level of participation of currency exchange.  We are in the business of exchanging ideas, I could care less about the currency they desire.  Currency is only about accounting monetary transactions.  That's what businesses strive for, and their products re usually not for the better good, not because the pharmecutical companies actually care about people and what to help them... no, they just want something that people will "buy".  We aren't in that business.</p><p>If Microsoft wants to use Eclipse... then that's a plus for Eclipse.  If I worked on Eclipse or submitted a patch, that's more pride and appreciation for me; regardless how I feel about Microsoft.</p><p>What the media is trying to do, is associate our work with actual monetary cost, the same crap they reference in their world.  They want to do this, because the next step is to justify cost schemes and cost based justification for ignoble actions (such as, copyright infringment, or invalidation of past GPLs for a new GPL that cators to business financial interests and control).</p><p>DO NOT DEMAND CONTRIBUTIONS FROM ANYONE!  THAT IS NOT OUR MODEL, THAT IS NOT HOW WE GOT SO ADVANCED AS A SOURCE FOR QUALITY SOFTWARE!  'FREELOADERS' TO US ARE BUG TESTORS, IT'S NOT A NEGATIVE LABEL, IT DOESN'T TRANSLATE IN THE OSS COMMUNITY!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A company is ONLY obligated in accordance to the GPL or whatever other OSL they agreed to.A company , hacker or hobbyist , I personally do n't give a damn .
They should make the source available , they should make all modifications available .
They should not charge any more than distribution costs for that portion of software , they have to reflect all past contributors and other claims of participation whether it is explicit copy right , or bragging rights.Just because they are a company , we should not stoop to their level of participation of currency exchange .
We are in the business of exchanging ideas , I could care less about the currency they desire .
Currency is only about accounting monetary transactions .
That 's what businesses strive for , and their products re usually not for the better good , not because the pharmecutical companies actually care about people and what to help them... no , they just want something that people will " buy " .
We are n't in that business.If Microsoft wants to use Eclipse... then that 's a plus for Eclipse .
If I worked on Eclipse or submitted a patch , that 's more pride and appreciation for me ; regardless how I feel about Microsoft.What the media is trying to do , is associate our work with actual monetary cost , the same crap they reference in their world .
They want to do this , because the next step is to justify cost schemes and cost based justification for ignoble actions ( such as , copyright infringment , or invalidation of past GPLs for a new GPL that cators to business financial interests and control ) .DO NOT DEMAND CONTRIBUTIONS FROM ANYONE !
THAT IS NOT OUR MODEL , THAT IS NOT HOW WE GOT SO ADVANCED AS A SOURCE FOR QUALITY SOFTWARE !
'FREELOADERS ' TO US ARE BUG TESTORS , IT 'S NOT A NEGATIVE LABEL , IT DOES N'T TRANSLATE IN THE OSS COMMUNITY !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A company is ONLY obligated in accordance to the GPL or whatever other OSL they agreed to.A company, hacker or hobbyist, I personally don't give a damn.
They should make the source available, they should make all modifications available.
They should not charge any more than distribution costs for that portion of software, they have to reflect all past contributors and other claims of participation whether it is explicit copy right, or bragging rights.Just because they are a company, we should not stoop to their level of participation of currency exchange.
We are in the business of exchanging ideas, I could care less about the currency they desire.
Currency is only about accounting monetary transactions.
That's what businesses strive for, and their products re usually not for the better good, not because the pharmecutical companies actually care about people and what to help them... no, they just want something that people will "buy".
We aren't in that business.If Microsoft wants to use Eclipse... then that's a plus for Eclipse.
If I worked on Eclipse or submitted a patch, that's more pride and appreciation for me; regardless how I feel about Microsoft.What the media is trying to do, is associate our work with actual monetary cost, the same crap they reference in their world.
They want to do this, because the next step is to justify cost schemes and cost based justification for ignoble actions (such as, copyright infringment, or invalidation of past GPLs for a new GPL that cators to business financial interests and control).DO NOT DEMAND CONTRIBUTIONS FROM ANYONE!
THAT IS NOT OUR MODEL, THAT IS NOT HOW WE GOT SO ADVANCED AS A SOURCE FOR QUALITY SOFTWARE!
'FREELOADERS' TO US ARE BUG TESTORS, IT'S NOT A NEGATIVE LABEL, IT DOESN'T TRANSLATE IN THE OSS COMMUNITY!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167803</id>
	<title>Re:Just To Be Clear...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243870080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>First, it is not the community as a whole, it is a subset of it, and a tiny one at that.</p></div><p>It's large enough to get talked about a lot.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Second, free as in speech, not as in beer.</p></div><p>No, it is generally free in both senses.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Third, they aren't asking for "compensation".</p></div><p>Yes they are. They want companies to contribute patches to help develop/maintain these free software packages.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>First , it is not the community as a whole , it is a subset of it , and a tiny one at that.It 's large enough to get talked about a lot.Second , free as in speech , not as in beer.No , it is generally free in both senses.Third , they are n't asking for " compensation " .Yes they are .
They want companies to contribute patches to help develop/maintain these free software packages .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First, it is not the community as a whole, it is a subset of it, and a tiny one at that.It's large enough to get talked about a lot.Second, free as in speech, not as in beer.No, it is generally free in both senses.Third, they aren't asking for "compensation".Yes they are.
They want companies to contribute patches to help develop/maintain these free software packages.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167289</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167191</id>
	<title>this is where ...</title>
	<author>jsnipy</author>
	<datestamp>1243867380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is where the whole "money" thing came in. This reminds me of the south park episode where the kids are talking to first year college students.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is where the whole " money " thing came in .
This reminds me of the south park episode where the kids are talking to first year college students .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is where the whole "money" thing came in.
This reminds me of the south park episode where the kids are talking to first year college students.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167395</id>
	<title>missing the point</title>
	<author>atilla filiz</author>
	<datestamp>1243868400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The point of GPL is, it gives you absolute control of how you use the software. If someone is just using some free tools, they owe absolutely nothing. The cost comes in when you make some changes or patches.
The terms of GPL are clear: if you build something on the original code, you must contribute your work.
(Free software is like free speech, not free beer. Being free doesn't mean there is no cost)</htmltext>
<tokenext>The point of GPL is , it gives you absolute control of how you use the software .
If someone is just using some free tools , they owe absolutely nothing .
The cost comes in when you make some changes or patches .
The terms of GPL are clear : if you build something on the original code , you must contribute your work .
( Free software is like free speech , not free beer .
Being free does n't mean there is no cost )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The point of GPL is, it gives you absolute control of how you use the software.
If someone is just using some free tools, they owe absolutely nothing.
The cost comes in when you make some changes or patches.
The terms of GPL are clear: if you build something on the original code, you must contribute your work.
(Free software is like free speech, not free beer.
Being free doesn't mean there is no cost)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28168203</id>
	<title>BAD ANALOGY</title>
	<author>Bobtree</author>
	<datestamp>1243871820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is most definitely NOT a "tragedy of the commons" scenario.  Open Source and Free software are available for unlimited duplication and have no inherent scarcity, unlike the allegorical commons.  The fact that they benefit from more widespread usage due to feedback and bugfixing further turns this stupidly misused comparison on its head.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is most definitely NOT a " tragedy of the commons " scenario .
Open Source and Free software are available for unlimited duplication and have no inherent scarcity , unlike the allegorical commons .
The fact that they benefit from more widespread usage due to feedback and bugfixing further turns this stupidly misused comparison on its head .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is most definitely NOT a "tragedy of the commons" scenario.
Open Source and Free software are available for unlimited duplication and have no inherent scarcity, unlike the allegorical commons.
The fact that they benefit from more widespread usage due to feedback and bugfixing further turns this stupidly misused comparison on its head.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28185173</id>
	<title>Re:Just To Be Clear...</title>
	<author>Patch86</author>
	<datestamp>1243968900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The concepts being bandied around by TFA and its ilk make no sense. They make no sense in a way that should be very familiar to slashdot.</p><p>The article uses the phrase "leech", others say "take and give nothing back". But what are they taking? Software, just like music, film and other electronic media, is copied, not taken. When a big company uses some software, they haven't used anything up; they just take a copy. When a man writes a programme, it doesn't make any difference to him whether 1 person uses it or 1 million- he will be unaffected either way. He might feel it is unfair that 1 million people are benefiting from his work and not showering him with rewards, but it isn't actually any different from his perspective whether the programme tanks and is a smash hit. Arguing that he has been somehow deprived is no less ridiculous that when the *AA pull the same trick.</p><p>Far and aside from the above, it also flatly ignores the way that some open source projects have chosen to monetise their product. One of the most common business models for OSS is support- you encourage people to use your free product (speech &amp; beer), and then rent out your services for technical support into the future. Big companies certainly do contribute back through this channel, even if they aren't directly lavishing the projects in cash or paying for developer time.</p><p>If a company, big or small, wants to adopt OO.o, they can, because it is free in all respects. They will use it, they will submit bug reports, they will make known their desires for certain features, they might create plugins which can find their way into the wild, and they may even use the official (paid for) support channels when things go wrong. These are all good things for the OO.o project. One may wish they'd contribute more, but there's no reason why they should.</p><p>If you demand money before giving someone your source code, you're not open source.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The concepts being bandied around by TFA and its ilk make no sense .
They make no sense in a way that should be very familiar to slashdot.The article uses the phrase " leech " , others say " take and give nothing back " .
But what are they taking ?
Software , just like music , film and other electronic media , is copied , not taken .
When a big company uses some software , they have n't used anything up ; they just take a copy .
When a man writes a programme , it does n't make any difference to him whether 1 person uses it or 1 million- he will be unaffected either way .
He might feel it is unfair that 1 million people are benefiting from his work and not showering him with rewards , but it is n't actually any different from his perspective whether the programme tanks and is a smash hit .
Arguing that he has been somehow deprived is no less ridiculous that when the * AA pull the same trick.Far and aside from the above , it also flatly ignores the way that some open source projects have chosen to monetise their product .
One of the most common business models for OSS is support- you encourage people to use your free product ( speech &amp; beer ) , and then rent out your services for technical support into the future .
Big companies certainly do contribute back through this channel , even if they are n't directly lavishing the projects in cash or paying for developer time.If a company , big or small , wants to adopt OO.o , they can , because it is free in all respects .
They will use it , they will submit bug reports , they will make known their desires for certain features , they might create plugins which can find their way into the wild , and they may even use the official ( paid for ) support channels when things go wrong .
These are all good things for the OO.o project .
One may wish they 'd contribute more , but there 's no reason why they should.If you demand money before giving someone your source code , you 're not open source .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The concepts being bandied around by TFA and its ilk make no sense.
They make no sense in a way that should be very familiar to slashdot.The article uses the phrase "leech", others say "take and give nothing back".
But what are they taking?
Software, just like music, film and other electronic media, is copied, not taken.
When a big company uses some software, they haven't used anything up; they just take a copy.
When a man writes a programme, it doesn't make any difference to him whether 1 person uses it or 1 million- he will be unaffected either way.
He might feel it is unfair that 1 million people are benefiting from his work and not showering him with rewards, but it isn't actually any different from his perspective whether the programme tanks and is a smash hit.
Arguing that he has been somehow deprived is no less ridiculous that when the *AA pull the same trick.Far and aside from the above, it also flatly ignores the way that some open source projects have chosen to monetise their product.
One of the most common business models for OSS is support- you encourage people to use your free product (speech &amp; beer), and then rent out your services for technical support into the future.
Big companies certainly do contribute back through this channel, even if they aren't directly lavishing the projects in cash or paying for developer time.If a company, big or small, wants to adopt OO.o, they can, because it is free in all respects.
They will use it, they will submit bug reports, they will make known their desires for certain features, they might create plugins which can find their way into the wild, and they may even use the official (paid for) support channels when things go wrong.
These are all good things for the OO.o project.
One may wish they'd contribute more, but there's no reason why they should.If you demand money before giving someone your source code, you're not open source.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167405</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28177859</id>
	<title>Re:Here's What You Can Do</title>
	<author>NateTech</author>
	<datestamp>1243879200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What does calling VMWare and buying licenses have to do with "open-source" or being involved in it?  Are you loony?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What does calling VMWare and buying licenses have to do with " open-source " or being involved in it ?
Are you loony ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What does calling VMWare and buying licenses have to do with "open-source" or being involved in it?
Are you loony?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28168841</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28168351</id>
	<title>Re:Just To Be Clear...</title>
	<author>Lumpy</author>
	<datestamp>1243872360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Woah.  Wait a minute.</p><p>I designed and produced several Embedded system products based on Linux.  I DID give back.  Not by sending in code, I did not change a line of anything in the linux kernel.   I DID give back by posting knowledge to problems online freely as well as saying the product runs linux and here's a link to the source code for all the apps and packages in it.</p><p>Only a nutjob thinks you must "give back" by submitting patches or code.  The Knowledge given back that solved even 1 persons problem faster is valuable.  Along with the advertising that the acknowledgment and the link to sources.</p><p>Jeebus, the Current Panasonic Plasma and LCD tv's all run linux, and you can find the link as well as the "it runs linux" advertisement in the setup menu.  That's a GREAT give back from Panasonic.  They get the name linux in the face of millions of people that have no clue what linux is.</p><p>The companies that package OSS up and try to pass it off as theirs?  Yes they are the asshats of industry.  Don't lump the rest of us in with the idiots.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Woah .
Wait a minute.I designed and produced several Embedded system products based on Linux .
I DID give back .
Not by sending in code , I did not change a line of anything in the linux kernel .
I DID give back by posting knowledge to problems online freely as well as saying the product runs linux and here 's a link to the source code for all the apps and packages in it.Only a nutjob thinks you must " give back " by submitting patches or code .
The Knowledge given back that solved even 1 persons problem faster is valuable .
Along with the advertising that the acknowledgment and the link to sources.Jeebus , the Current Panasonic Plasma and LCD tv 's all run linux , and you can find the link as well as the " it runs linux " advertisement in the setup menu .
That 's a GREAT give back from Panasonic .
They get the name linux in the face of millions of people that have no clue what linux is.The companies that package OSS up and try to pass it off as theirs ?
Yes they are the asshats of industry .
Do n't lump the rest of us in with the idiots .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Woah.
Wait a minute.I designed and produced several Embedded system products based on Linux.
I DID give back.
Not by sending in code, I did not change a line of anything in the linux kernel.
I DID give back by posting knowledge to problems online freely as well as saying the product runs linux and here's a link to the source code for all the apps and packages in it.Only a nutjob thinks you must "give back" by submitting patches or code.
The Knowledge given back that solved even 1 persons problem faster is valuable.
Along with the advertising that the acknowledgment and the link to sources.Jeebus, the Current Panasonic Plasma and LCD tv's all run linux, and you can find the link as well as the "it runs linux" advertisement in the setup menu.
That's a GREAT give back from Panasonic.
They get the name linux in the face of millions of people that have no clue what linux is.The companies that package OSS up and try to pass it off as theirs?
Yes they are the asshats of industry.
Don't lump the rest of us in with the idiots.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167405</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28175895</id>
	<title>Re:Just To Be Clear...</title>
	<author>Ptraci</author>
	<datestamp>1243861620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your point about it not depending on scarcity is important.  The complaints about "freeloaders" remind me of the RIAA complaints about file sharers, counting every download as a lost sale, instead of recognizing that file-sharing is a great way to drive up interest in an artist and finding a way to use that to get people to buy something.</p><p>When the marginal cost of distribution is so low, why does anyone care if there are freeloaders?  These people will probably at the very least help others to become more familiar with FOSS software and thereby drive up adoption by other people who may find ways of contributing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your point about it not depending on scarcity is important .
The complaints about " freeloaders " remind me of the RIAA complaints about file sharers , counting every download as a lost sale , instead of recognizing that file-sharing is a great way to drive up interest in an artist and finding a way to use that to get people to buy something.When the marginal cost of distribution is so low , why does anyone care if there are freeloaders ?
These people will probably at the very least help others to become more familiar with FOSS software and thereby drive up adoption by other people who may find ways of contributing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your point about it not depending on scarcity is important.
The complaints about "freeloaders" remind me of the RIAA complaints about file sharers, counting every download as a lost sale, instead of recognizing that file-sharing is a great way to drive up interest in an artist and finding a way to use that to get people to buy something.When the marginal cost of distribution is so low, why does anyone care if there are freeloaders?
These people will probably at the very least help others to become more familiar with FOSS software and thereby drive up adoption by other people who may find ways of contributing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28169173</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167519</id>
	<title>Re:Speaking as an Enterprise user</title>
	<author>CynicTheHedgehog</author>
	<datestamp>1243869000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A large part of my contribution comes from forum participation.  If I have an issue, and I don't have a support contract, then I take it to the forums and iron it out there.  That way the next person that comes along with the same problem can learn from that, which helps the community.  Bug reports help in the same way, provided you do enough investigation on your side and provide useful scenarios and test cases.  And since you are troubleshooting with others from the community, the solution is not "owned" by any one person or company.  If your company doesn't like that, then they can purchase support and work their problems out privately with the vendor.</p><p>I also code and submit patches at home for projects unrelated to my employer's business.  In a way, my use of F/OSS software is of benefit to me.  I'm sure my employer couldn't care less if I used Windows XP and Notepad to code, but thankfully I have the latitude to choose my own tools and I choose to use Linux with a F/OSS IDE because it makes me more efficient and preserves my sanity.  So I try to give back on my own time in return for the benefits I receive personally.</p><p>You may be bound by NDAs and noncompetes that preclude the above, but even promoting F/OSS software is also a way of contributing.  Driving demand for F/OSS solutions will increase adoption and support on the vendor side.  Most businesses like to maintain support contracts, so your endorsements can help F/OSS expand in the enterprise and increase support revenue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A large part of my contribution comes from forum participation .
If I have an issue , and I do n't have a support contract , then I take it to the forums and iron it out there .
That way the next person that comes along with the same problem can learn from that , which helps the community .
Bug reports help in the same way , provided you do enough investigation on your side and provide useful scenarios and test cases .
And since you are troubleshooting with others from the community , the solution is not " owned " by any one person or company .
If your company does n't like that , then they can purchase support and work their problems out privately with the vendor.I also code and submit patches at home for projects unrelated to my employer 's business .
In a way , my use of F/OSS software is of benefit to me .
I 'm sure my employer could n't care less if I used Windows XP and Notepad to code , but thankfully I have the latitude to choose my own tools and I choose to use Linux with a F/OSS IDE because it makes me more efficient and preserves my sanity .
So I try to give back on my own time in return for the benefits I receive personally.You may be bound by NDAs and noncompetes that preclude the above , but even promoting F/OSS software is also a way of contributing .
Driving demand for F/OSS solutions will increase adoption and support on the vendor side .
Most businesses like to maintain support contracts , so your endorsements can help F/OSS expand in the enterprise and increase support revenue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A large part of my contribution comes from forum participation.
If I have an issue, and I don't have a support contract, then I take it to the forums and iron it out there.
That way the next person that comes along with the same problem can learn from that, which helps the community.
Bug reports help in the same way, provided you do enough investigation on your side and provide useful scenarios and test cases.
And since you are troubleshooting with others from the community, the solution is not "owned" by any one person or company.
If your company doesn't like that, then they can purchase support and work their problems out privately with the vendor.I also code and submit patches at home for projects unrelated to my employer's business.
In a way, my use of F/OSS software is of benefit to me.
I'm sure my employer couldn't care less if I used Windows XP and Notepad to code, but thankfully I have the latitude to choose my own tools and I choose to use Linux with a F/OSS IDE because it makes me more efficient and preserves my sanity.
So I try to give back on my own time in return for the benefits I receive personally.You may be bound by NDAs and noncompetes that preclude the above, but even promoting F/OSS software is also a way of contributing.
Driving demand for F/OSS solutions will increase adoption and support on the vendor side.
Most businesses like to maintain support contracts, so your endorsements can help F/OSS expand in the enterprise and increase support revenue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167225</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167225</id>
	<title>Speaking as an Enterprise user</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243867500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I work for a large company that uses Open Source Software as its backbone.  I have been pushing for us to put some money into some of the projects that we use, or to recontribute some of the patches we've made.  In both cases, I am met with the stubborn answer "that is our intellectual property".  Trying to argue that the spirit of Open Source to recontribute to improve products, and that we've built our company upon that spirit and so we should contribute falls on deaf ears.  We've now gotten big enough that the senior management and lawyers are more concerned with our IP than with supporting the community that supported us when we were starting.  It's bad enough that I'm not even allowed to post code snippets/example bind or ntp configs etc on to various mailing lists I may be on because they also belong to "us".</p><p>There is a strong push at the technical level to recontribute, to fund a couple of the projects that we use heavily, but ultimately it's the higher ups and the legal folks that say no way.</p><p>I expect things like that are the reason enterprises are leeches, and I expect there is a large contingent of technical workers who disagree with the decision.  I know I do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I work for a large company that uses Open Source Software as its backbone .
I have been pushing for us to put some money into some of the projects that we use , or to recontribute some of the patches we 've made .
In both cases , I am met with the stubborn answer " that is our intellectual property " .
Trying to argue that the spirit of Open Source to recontribute to improve products , and that we 've built our company upon that spirit and so we should contribute falls on deaf ears .
We 've now gotten big enough that the senior management and lawyers are more concerned with our IP than with supporting the community that supported us when we were starting .
It 's bad enough that I 'm not even allowed to post code snippets/example bind or ntp configs etc on to various mailing lists I may be on because they also belong to " us " .There is a strong push at the technical level to recontribute , to fund a couple of the projects that we use heavily , but ultimately it 's the higher ups and the legal folks that say no way.I expect things like that are the reason enterprises are leeches , and I expect there is a large contingent of technical workers who disagree with the decision .
I know I do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I work for a large company that uses Open Source Software as its backbone.
I have been pushing for us to put some money into some of the projects that we use, or to recontribute some of the patches we've made.
In both cases, I am met with the stubborn answer "that is our intellectual property".
Trying to argue that the spirit of Open Source to recontribute to improve products, and that we've built our company upon that spirit and so we should contribute falls on deaf ears.
We've now gotten big enough that the senior management and lawyers are more concerned with our IP than with supporting the community that supported us when we were starting.
It's bad enough that I'm not even allowed to post code snippets/example bind or ntp configs etc on to various mailing lists I may be on because they also belong to "us".There is a strong push at the technical level to recontribute, to fund a couple of the projects that we use heavily, but ultimately it's the higher ups and the legal folks that say no way.I expect things like that are the reason enterprises are leeches, and I expect there is a large contingent of technical workers who disagree with the decision.
I know I do.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28178281</id>
	<title>public good</title>
	<author>nikanth</author>
	<datestamp>1243884900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Any one who just uses it is fine, as long as they dont trouble the developers. But if they have some fixes/improvements in-house but dont give it back, its very bad.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Any one who just uses it is fine , as long as they dont trouble the developers .
But if they have some fixes/improvements in-house but dont give it back , its very bad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any one who just uses it is fine, as long as they dont trouble the developers.
But if they have some fixes/improvements in-house but dont give it back, its very bad.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28170247</id>
	<title>Re:Just To Be Clear...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243880880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>But none of them will ever contribute back as much as they get</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Do you really expect every user of FOSS to <b>double</b> its size? <i>Any</i> contribution is great. The whole point is that software is a free good: it cannot be depleted by additional usage.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But none of them will ever contribute back as much as they get Do you really expect every user of FOSS to double its size ?
Any contribution is great .
The whole point is that software is a free good : it can not be depleted by additional usage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But none of them will ever contribute back as much as they get

Do you really expect every user of FOSS to double its size?
Any contribution is great.
The whole point is that software is a free good: it cannot be depleted by additional usage.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167405</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28168041</id>
	<title>It's open source, stupid!</title>
	<author>mwvdlee</author>
	<datestamp>1243871040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If those few developers wanted enterprises to give back, they should have put that in the license. Otherwise, stop complaining about enterprises using the product according to it's license.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If those few developers wanted enterprises to give back , they should have put that in the license .
Otherwise , stop complaining about enterprises using the product according to it 's license .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If those few developers wanted enterprises to give back, they should have put that in the license.
Otherwise, stop complaining about enterprises using the product according to it's license.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28168065</id>
	<title>Re:Of course they *should*...</title>
	<author>afidel</author>
	<datestamp>1243871100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>And those guys usually give back by demanding and paying for robust, well tested software from their vendors which then give back to the open source community. Since Redhat, Suse, and the other distro's and software houses are by FAR the biggest contributors of code to the OS community those large IT shops are giving back directly by paying the salary of the fulltime developers who are the largest contributors. There are significant contributions from the hobyist/enthusiast sector but the bulk of the work, especially on unsexy areas is done by people who are paid to do the work and either their employer or their customers are carrying those costs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And those guys usually give back by demanding and paying for robust , well tested software from their vendors which then give back to the open source community .
Since Redhat , Suse , and the other distro 's and software houses are by FAR the biggest contributors of code to the OS community those large IT shops are giving back directly by paying the salary of the fulltime developers who are the largest contributors .
There are significant contributions from the hobyist/enthusiast sector but the bulk of the work , especially on unsexy areas is done by people who are paid to do the work and either their employer or their customers are carrying those costs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And those guys usually give back by demanding and paying for robust, well tested software from their vendors which then give back to the open source community.
Since Redhat, Suse, and the other distro's and software houses are by FAR the biggest contributors of code to the OS community those large IT shops are giving back directly by paying the salary of the fulltime developers who are the largest contributors.
There are significant contributions from the hobyist/enthusiast sector but the bulk of the work, especially on unsexy areas is done by people who are paid to do the work and either their employer or their customers are carrying those costs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167743</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167087</id>
	<title>Just To Be Clear...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243866960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The <i>Free</i> Open Source Software community, that builds <i>free</i>, open source software, is complaining that they are not, in one way or another, being another compensated for their <i>free</i> software?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Free Open Source Software community , that builds free , open source software , is complaining that they are not , in one way or another , being another compensated for their free software ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Free Open Source Software community, that builds free, open source software, is complaining that they are not, in one way or another, being another compensated for their free software?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28172251</id>
	<title>Re:Call me an idiot but...</title>
	<author>ajlisows</author>
	<datestamp>1243888740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm more of a Network Support guy but I write small web apps when I need to.  The company I work for really wanted a "Store Locator" program and instead of writing it from scratch I found one laying around.  I did a lot of tweaking to add some features and make it more like what they wanted and told them that I had built on somebody's idea and wanted to post my "Improved" application.  After all, we derived the benefit of hours of my time from something someone else had put on the web....posting my improvements wouldn't cost the company anything. The company really freaked out.</p><p>Because this is a small company with a small IT staff, decisions like this have to be presented to the extremely non technical President.  The application in question has an XML database on the back end.  The basic problem here was communication.  They heard "Runs off a database" and didn't understand that there are actually multiple databases within the company.  They thought that to release this I would be packaging up our main ERP database and posting it for every crook on the internet to see.  Never mind that I would be packaging the schema only...not the data.  The higher ups don't understand where a "Program" ends and a "Database" begins.  They think it's all wrapped together.</p><p>I switched it over to a MySQL database (really easier to show someone non-technical) and showed them the application running on a database with only the header columns and two "Fake" locations.  They asked why I was wasting their time asking if I could post it on the internet.  It had no company information so they didn't care.  I'm polishing it up a bit and am going to submit it to the original developer to see if he wants to implement may changes to the software.  I finally will be giving back to the community.</p><p>I guess my point is that in some cases, management might not understand what precisely you are giving away.  Most Execs (And sadly some tech people) can't really differentiate between "Our System" and "Little piece of software that manipulates data to be displayed in a certain manner."  It sounds like your case was more extreme, but for others I would recommend trying different ways to explain what you want to do, and why.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm more of a Network Support guy but I write small web apps when I need to .
The company I work for really wanted a " Store Locator " program and instead of writing it from scratch I found one laying around .
I did a lot of tweaking to add some features and make it more like what they wanted and told them that I had built on somebody 's idea and wanted to post my " Improved " application .
After all , we derived the benefit of hours of my time from something someone else had put on the web....posting my improvements would n't cost the company anything .
The company really freaked out.Because this is a small company with a small IT staff , decisions like this have to be presented to the extremely non technical President .
The application in question has an XML database on the back end .
The basic problem here was communication .
They heard " Runs off a database " and did n't understand that there are actually multiple databases within the company .
They thought that to release this I would be packaging up our main ERP database and posting it for every crook on the internet to see .
Never mind that I would be packaging the schema only...not the data .
The higher ups do n't understand where a " Program " ends and a " Database " begins .
They think it 's all wrapped together.I switched it over to a MySQL database ( really easier to show someone non-technical ) and showed them the application running on a database with only the header columns and two " Fake " locations .
They asked why I was wasting their time asking if I could post it on the internet .
It had no company information so they did n't care .
I 'm polishing it up a bit and am going to submit it to the original developer to see if he wants to implement may changes to the software .
I finally will be giving back to the community.I guess my point is that in some cases , management might not understand what precisely you are giving away .
Most Execs ( And sadly some tech people ) ca n't really differentiate between " Our System " and " Little piece of software that manipulates data to be displayed in a certain manner .
" It sounds like your case was more extreme , but for others I would recommend trying different ways to explain what you want to do , and why .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm more of a Network Support guy but I write small web apps when I need to.
The company I work for really wanted a "Store Locator" program and instead of writing it from scratch I found one laying around.
I did a lot of tweaking to add some features and make it more like what they wanted and told them that I had built on somebody's idea and wanted to post my "Improved" application.
After all, we derived the benefit of hours of my time from something someone else had put on the web....posting my improvements wouldn't cost the company anything.
The company really freaked out.Because this is a small company with a small IT staff, decisions like this have to be presented to the extremely non technical President.
The application in question has an XML database on the back end.
The basic problem here was communication.
They heard "Runs off a database" and didn't understand that there are actually multiple databases within the company.
They thought that to release this I would be packaging up our main ERP database and posting it for every crook on the internet to see.
Never mind that I would be packaging the schema only...not the data.
The higher ups don't understand where a "Program" ends and a "Database" begins.
They think it's all wrapped together.I switched it over to a MySQL database (really easier to show someone non-technical) and showed them the application running on a database with only the header columns and two "Fake" locations.
They asked why I was wasting their time asking if I could post it on the internet.
It had no company information so they didn't care.
I'm polishing it up a bit and am going to submit it to the original developer to see if he wants to implement may changes to the software.
I finally will be giving back to the community.I guess my point is that in some cases, management might not understand what precisely you are giving away.
Most Execs (And sadly some tech people) can't really differentiate between "Our System" and "Little piece of software that manipulates data to be displayed in a certain manner.
"  It sounds like your case was more extreme, but for others I would recommend trying different ways to explain what you want to do, and why.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167173</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167525</id>
	<title>Re:Call me an idiot but...</title>
	<author>zwei2stein</author>
	<datestamp>1243869000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are aware or rsync and power of bash, right?</p><p>Of course you will be ridiculed. You managed to rage-out for no reason at all. While you could think yourself and file-sync messiah, you should look up success rates of OS projects. Wasteland of abandoned projects is covered with 'neat tools' which reinvented wheel.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are aware or rsync and power of bash , right ? Of course you will be ridiculed .
You managed to rage-out for no reason at all .
While you could think yourself and file-sync messiah , you should look up success rates of OS projects .
Wasteland of abandoned projects is covered with 'neat tools ' which reinvented wheel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are aware or rsync and power of bash, right?Of course you will be ridiculed.
You managed to rage-out for no reason at all.
While you could think yourself and file-sync messiah, you should look up success rates of OS projects.
Wasteland of abandoned projects is covered with 'neat tools' which reinvented wheel.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167173</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28171649</id>
	<title>Re:But some software is more free than others</title>
	<author>LWATCDR</author>
	<datestamp>1243886760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"&gt; You can never force people to contribute to FOSS.<br>Yes you can. It's call GPL."<br>Really? So what do users contribute that download Ubuntu and never give a cent of money, a moment of time, or a line of code?<br>What about all the users that own G1 Phones that just use them to download free apps and make calls?</p><p>'Do you honestly think that without the GPL companies bother to hire people to contribute to Linux?"<br>Probably not. But who says that the GPL is a bad thing. It is great. I am all for it. I have contributed code under it and released source to PD software before there was a GPL.<br>It isn't the only solution and doesn't work for every thing.</p><p>"The way I see it is that software is approaching a zero sum game. There's more money to be made in selling services and supports and other ideas around software instead of COTS software like Windows."</p><p>Exactly how will you make money off a casual game? What about a FPS? Support? services? what support or services?</p><p>Where is the FOSS replaceable for SoildWorks? Photoshop "Gimp is good but not that good". Or even iMovie or Premiere?</p><p>The ideal program is intuitive and doesn't require support or services.  I don't need support for Firefox or frankly for most software I use. Then how does writing the software get you support? You don't have to author a program to support it. If you are using support as profit center then why should you make the program easier to use?<br>Too many ways for it to just not work.  FOSS is great for some applications. It fails for a lot of others. I would love to be proven wrong but I don't see that happening. The best software requires a motivation it doesn't have to be money but when it isn't money software will often stop getting better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" &gt; You can never force people to contribute to FOSS.Yes you can .
It 's call GPL. " Really ?
So what do users contribute that download Ubuntu and never give a cent of money , a moment of time , or a line of code ? What about all the users that own G1 Phones that just use them to download free apps and make calls ?
'Do you honestly think that without the GPL companies bother to hire people to contribute to Linux ?
" Probably not .
But who says that the GPL is a bad thing .
It is great .
I am all for it .
I have contributed code under it and released source to PD software before there was a GPL.It is n't the only solution and does n't work for every thing .
" The way I see it is that software is approaching a zero sum game .
There 's more money to be made in selling services and supports and other ideas around software instead of COTS software like Windows .
" Exactly how will you make money off a casual game ?
What about a FPS ?
Support ? services ?
what support or services ? Where is the FOSS replaceable for SoildWorks ?
Photoshop " Gimp is good but not that good " .
Or even iMovie or Premiere ? The ideal program is intuitive and does n't require support or services .
I do n't need support for Firefox or frankly for most software I use .
Then how does writing the software get you support ?
You do n't have to author a program to support it .
If you are using support as profit center then why should you make the program easier to use ? Too many ways for it to just not work .
FOSS is great for some applications .
It fails for a lot of others .
I would love to be proven wrong but I do n't see that happening .
The best software requires a motivation it does n't have to be money but when it is n't money software will often stop getting better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"&gt; You can never force people to contribute to FOSS.Yes you can.
It's call GPL."Really?
So what do users contribute that download Ubuntu and never give a cent of money, a moment of time, or a line of code?What about all the users that own G1 Phones that just use them to download free apps and make calls?
'Do you honestly think that without the GPL companies bother to hire people to contribute to Linux?
"Probably not.
But who says that the GPL is a bad thing.
It is great.
I am all for it.
I have contributed code under it and released source to PD software before there was a GPL.It isn't the only solution and doesn't work for every thing.
"The way I see it is that software is approaching a zero sum game.
There's more money to be made in selling services and supports and other ideas around software instead of COTS software like Windows.
"Exactly how will you make money off a casual game?
What about a FPS?
Support? services?
what support or services?Where is the FOSS replaceable for SoildWorks?
Photoshop "Gimp is good but not that good".
Or even iMovie or Premiere?The ideal program is intuitive and doesn't require support or services.
I don't need support for Firefox or frankly for most software I use.
Then how does writing the software get you support?
You don't have to author a program to support it.
If you are using support as profit center then why should you make the program easier to use?Too many ways for it to just not work.
FOSS is great for some applications.
It fails for a lot of others.
I would love to be proven wrong but I don't see that happening.
The best software requires a motivation it doesn't have to be money but when it isn't money software will often stop getting better.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28168543</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28171419</id>
	<title>Re:Just To Be Clear...</title>
	<author>pseudonomous</author>
	<datestamp>1243885920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And how much benefit would the F0SS world reap by having these "non-contributors" continuing to use proprietary software?  Even if FOSS gains nothing from this situation, neither does it lose anything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And how much benefit would the F0SS world reap by having these " non-contributors " continuing to use proprietary software ?
Even if FOSS gains nothing from this situation , neither does it lose anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And how much benefit would the F0SS world reap by having these "non-contributors" continuing to use proprietary software?
Even if FOSS gains nothing from this situation, neither does it lose anything.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167405</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28168313</id>
	<title>Linux Users Give by Using</title>
	<author>happy\_place</author>
	<datestamp>1243872180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I use Linux over a pay OS I think I do give to the community. I don't have to develop source for it. I can use it, post a few questions now and then on message boards about why this or that isn't working, or asking questions. The free search engines pick up my questions, and eventually someone else benefits because I asked a question that someone found an answer for. I buy certain products from companies that require licenses, that run on Linux. I happen to know that many of those companies actually do contribute to open source. If I use their products and open standards, then my products are more compatible with open standards, even if they are my own. If its offered free, it should be free...</p><p>That's always been the point of open source.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I use Linux over a pay OS I think I do give to the community .
I do n't have to develop source for it .
I can use it , post a few questions now and then on message boards about why this or that is n't working , or asking questions .
The free search engines pick up my questions , and eventually someone else benefits because I asked a question that someone found an answer for .
I buy certain products from companies that require licenses , that run on Linux .
I happen to know that many of those companies actually do contribute to open source .
If I use their products and open standards , then my products are more compatible with open standards , even if they are my own .
If its offered free , it should be free...That 's always been the point of open source .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I use Linux over a pay OS I think I do give to the community.
I don't have to develop source for it.
I can use it, post a few questions now and then on message boards about why this or that isn't working, or asking questions.
The free search engines pick up my questions, and eventually someone else benefits because I asked a question that someone found an answer for.
I buy certain products from companies that require licenses, that run on Linux.
I happen to know that many of those companies actually do contribute to open source.
If I use their products and open standards, then my products are more compatible with open standards, even if they are my own.
If its offered free, it should be free...That's always been the point of open source.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28172299</id>
	<title>Rethink software economy</title>
	<author>paxcoder</author>
	<datestamp>1243888920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And THAT my friends, is the difference between free software and open source.
Canonical l33Ch0rZ</htmltext>
<tokenext>And THAT my friends , is the difference between free software and open source .
Canonical l33Ch0rZ</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And THAT my friends, is the difference between free software and open source.
Canonical l33Ch0rZ</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28169071</id>
	<title>Linux kernel under Affero GPLv3 license</title>
	<author>12357bd</author>
	<datestamp>1243875420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Linus and the FSF should put the Linux kernel and related programs under the Affero GPL v3 license, and <strong>force</strong> the big ones (ie: Google) to <strong>give back</strong> a good share of the wealth they made thanks to open sourced programs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Linus and the FSF should put the Linux kernel and related programs under the Affero GPL v3 license , and force the big ones ( ie : Google ) to give back a good share of the wealth they made thanks to open sourced programs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Linus and the FSF should put the Linux kernel and related programs under the Affero GPL v3 license, and force the big ones (ie: Google) to give back a good share of the wealth they made thanks to open sourced programs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28168949</id>
	<title>Major news outlet...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243875060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We're basically an Apache/Tomcat shop and we run many other open source products. We've been trying for years to get the management  to allow us to contribute our Apache changes back into the codebase rather than run the fork that we are, and it's all been for naught until a couple of weeks ago (after nearly 10 years of using open source). An edict from on high came down that we should be contributing back to the community, so we're looking into doing that soon, as well as publishing our internally written tools for others to use. All of us admins are quite happy at this development.</p><p>Personally, after basing my career on others work and using it for free, I'm happy that I'll finally be contributing instead of just using, but I don't have a problem with someone never offering up a bit of code for their own. Using an opensource product is, in and of itself, contribution to the product, imho.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 're basically an Apache/Tomcat shop and we run many other open source products .
We 've been trying for years to get the management to allow us to contribute our Apache changes back into the codebase rather than run the fork that we are , and it 's all been for naught until a couple of weeks ago ( after nearly 10 years of using open source ) .
An edict from on high came down that we should be contributing back to the community , so we 're looking into doing that soon , as well as publishing our internally written tools for others to use .
All of us admins are quite happy at this development.Personally , after basing my career on others work and using it for free , I 'm happy that I 'll finally be contributing instead of just using , but I do n't have a problem with someone never offering up a bit of code for their own .
Using an opensource product is , in and of itself , contribution to the product , imho .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We're basically an Apache/Tomcat shop and we run many other open source products.
We've been trying for years to get the management  to allow us to contribute our Apache changes back into the codebase rather than run the fork that we are, and it's all been for naught until a couple of weeks ago (after nearly 10 years of using open source).
An edict from on high came down that we should be contributing back to the community, so we're looking into doing that soon, as well as publishing our internally written tools for others to use.
All of us admins are quite happy at this development.Personally, after basing my career on others work and using it for free, I'm happy that I'll finally be contributing instead of just using, but I don't have a problem with someone never offering up a bit of code for their own.
Using an opensource product is, in and of itself, contribution to the product, imho.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28168845</id>
	<title>Yes and no</title>
	<author>Todd Knarr</author>
	<datestamp>1243874580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, corporate IT should give back to open source. When they make fixes or enhancements they should, out of self-interest, contribute those back to the main-line codebase so they won't have to worry about maintaining them as future changes are made.</p><p>But they shouldn't be forced to contribute back. If they're using it in-house and not distributing modified code, they should be free to take on the maintenance headaches if they want to. If they complain and want things done to make life easier for them the correct answer should be "Personal problems are the third door down on the left, have a nice day.", though. The only exception is where they're modifying free code (ie. code under a GPL-type license) and redistributing binaries created from the modified code, in which case they should be required to comply with the license and make their modifications available in source form. If they're redistributing modified verisons of code that's under a BSD-style license, well, the license doesn't require them to disclose the source and they shouldn't be forced to do anything more than comply with the license terms. I personally may disagree with the choice of license, but the code's author apparently thought the license he chose was appropriate and it's his code and his decision, not mine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , corporate IT should give back to open source .
When they make fixes or enhancements they should , out of self-interest , contribute those back to the main-line codebase so they wo n't have to worry about maintaining them as future changes are made.But they should n't be forced to contribute back .
If they 're using it in-house and not distributing modified code , they should be free to take on the maintenance headaches if they want to .
If they complain and want things done to make life easier for them the correct answer should be " Personal problems are the third door down on the left , have a nice day .
" , though .
The only exception is where they 're modifying free code ( ie .
code under a GPL-type license ) and redistributing binaries created from the modified code , in which case they should be required to comply with the license and make their modifications available in source form .
If they 're redistributing modified verisons of code that 's under a BSD-style license , well , the license does n't require them to disclose the source and they should n't be forced to do anything more than comply with the license terms .
I personally may disagree with the choice of license , but the code 's author apparently thought the license he chose was appropriate and it 's his code and his decision , not mine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, corporate IT should give back to open source.
When they make fixes or enhancements they should, out of self-interest, contribute those back to the main-line codebase so they won't have to worry about maintaining them as future changes are made.But they shouldn't be forced to contribute back.
If they're using it in-house and not distributing modified code, they should be free to take on the maintenance headaches if they want to.
If they complain and want things done to make life easier for them the correct answer should be "Personal problems are the third door down on the left, have a nice day.
", though.
The only exception is where they're modifying free code (ie.
code under a GPL-type license) and redistributing binaries created from the modified code, in which case they should be required to comply with the license and make their modifications available in source form.
If they're redistributing modified verisons of code that's under a BSD-style license, well, the license doesn't require them to disclose the source and they shouldn't be forced to do anything more than comply with the license terms.
I personally may disagree with the choice of license, but the code's author apparently thought the license he chose was appropriate and it's his code and his decision, not mine.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28180621</id>
	<title>Re:Militant GPL Enthusiasts</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243950120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Was the art GPL'ed? If so, IMHO the layered format does fall under the "preferred format for making changes" clause.</p><p>Now, if you're the author of said game, I guess you can do what you want. Since you own the copyright, you don't need a distribution license. However, he does, and  the GPL does require him to distribute it in the preferred format for making changes. Which is quite hard, when you didn't give it to him.</p><p>So, under a strict reading of the GPL, he would not be allowed to distribute the modified game at all without those missing pieces..</p><p>In that case, may I ask you why you put the game under the GPL in the first place?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Was the art GPL'ed ?
If so , IMHO the layered format does fall under the " preferred format for making changes " clause.Now , if you 're the author of said game , I guess you can do what you want .
Since you own the copyright , you do n't need a distribution license .
However , he does , and the GPL does require him to distribute it in the preferred format for making changes .
Which is quite hard , when you did n't give it to him.So , under a strict reading of the GPL , he would not be allowed to distribute the modified game at all without those missing pieces..In that case , may I ask you why you put the game under the GPL in the first place ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Was the art GPL'ed?
If so, IMHO the layered format does fall under the "preferred format for making changes" clause.Now, if you're the author of said game, I guess you can do what you want.
Since you own the copyright, you don't need a distribution license.
However, he does, and  the GPL does require him to distribute it in the preferred format for making changes.
Which is quite hard, when you didn't give it to him.So, under a strict reading of the GPL, he would not be allowed to distribute the modified game at all without those missing pieces..In that case, may I ask you why you put the game under the GPL in the first place?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28168489</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167171</id>
	<title>No, and this is a stupid question.</title>
	<author>Leebert</author>
	<datestamp>1243867260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Free software developers lose exactly nothing when someone uses their software.</p><p>Free software gains ubiquity when someone uses their software.  Which translates into things like vendor support (drivers, etc.), the advantages of greater adoption for certain technologies (Metcalf's law type stuff), etc. etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Free software developers lose exactly nothing when someone uses their software.Free software gains ubiquity when someone uses their software .
Which translates into things like vendor support ( drivers , etc .
) , the advantages of greater adoption for certain technologies ( Metcalf 's law type stuff ) , etc .
etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Free software developers lose exactly nothing when someone uses their software.Free software gains ubiquity when someone uses their software.
Which translates into things like vendor support (drivers, etc.
), the advantages of greater adoption for certain technologies (Metcalf's law type stuff), etc.
etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28169095</id>
	<title>Get Your Heads Out of Your Rears</title>
	<author>Ezekiel68</author>
	<datestamp>1243875540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Boo Hoo Hoo, We made some great software and nobody will help us!<p>Why does an open source developer write software?  Riches?  Fame?  To get laid?</p><p>The best open source software out there is created by people who need to solve problems they themselves have.  There is no "should".  Nobody "should" do anything.  Put your code out there for the love of it or go home.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Boo Hoo Hoo , We made some great software and nobody will help us ! Why does an open source developer write software ?
Riches ? Fame ?
To get laid ? The best open source software out there is created by people who need to solve problems they themselves have .
There is no " should " .
Nobody " should " do anything .
Put your code out there for the love of it or go home .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Boo Hoo Hoo, We made some great software and nobody will help us!Why does an open source developer write software?
Riches?  Fame?
To get laid?The best open source software out there is created by people who need to solve problems they themselves have.
There is no "should".
Nobody "should" do anything.
Put your code out there for the love of it or go home.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28170289</id>
	<title>Might be better off without them</title>
	<author>morgauxo</author>
	<datestamp>1243881120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Having used Linux and a great deal of open source software that goes with it on the Desktop since 1998 I'm not sure I'd be happy to see more contributions from "Enterprise IT" and whatever companies fall under that umbrella.  As buisiness usage of Linux has grown it seems like it has eclipsed other usage in developer's priorities.
<br> <br>
While it now runs great on a large expensive mainframe performing huge database functions it seems like it is less efficient running  ordinary Desktop apps on ordinary Desktop hardware. Unfortunately, I don't get the impression that Desktop users even have a chance to counterbalance this with their own contributions. Remember the CK patchset?
<br> <br>
Likewise, in some ways I believe that the ease of use has gone down. Remember Supermount?
<br> <br>
As more large coorporations with deep pockets get involved I am afraid all that is gained is louder, squeekier wheels who aren't squeeking for the things which benefit the rest of us.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Having used Linux and a great deal of open source software that goes with it on the Desktop since 1998 I 'm not sure I 'd be happy to see more contributions from " Enterprise IT " and whatever companies fall under that umbrella .
As buisiness usage of Linux has grown it seems like it has eclipsed other usage in developer 's priorities .
While it now runs great on a large expensive mainframe performing huge database functions it seems like it is less efficient running ordinary Desktop apps on ordinary Desktop hardware .
Unfortunately , I do n't get the impression that Desktop users even have a chance to counterbalance this with their own contributions .
Remember the CK patchset ?
Likewise , in some ways I believe that the ease of use has gone down .
Remember Supermount ?
As more large coorporations with deep pockets get involved I am afraid all that is gained is louder , squeekier wheels who are n't squeeking for the things which benefit the rest of us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Having used Linux and a great deal of open source software that goes with it on the Desktop since 1998 I'm not sure I'd be happy to see more contributions from "Enterprise IT" and whatever companies fall under that umbrella.
As buisiness usage of Linux has grown it seems like it has eclipsed other usage in developer's priorities.
While it now runs great on a large expensive mainframe performing huge database functions it seems like it is less efficient running  ordinary Desktop apps on ordinary Desktop hardware.
Unfortunately, I don't get the impression that Desktop users even have a chance to counterbalance this with their own contributions.
Remember the CK patchset?
Likewise, in some ways I believe that the ease of use has gone down.
Remember Supermount?
As more large coorporations with deep pockets get involved I am afraid all that is gained is louder, squeekier wheels who aren't squeeking for the things which benefit the rest of us.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28171927</id>
	<title>Re:Have your cake and eat it?</title>
	<author>UnderLoK</author>
	<datestamp>1243887600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What many of these guys and gals are pissed off about is that many companies have gone through the trouble of fixing bugs and not shared the fact that the bug existed in the first place or the actual fix.</p><p>I think people in general don't understand what many of these people are pissed off about. If you spent days and weeks of your spare time tracking down a bug and fixing it only to find out shortly there after that company x had a patch 4 months ago you would be a little pissed off.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What many of these guys and gals are pissed off about is that many companies have gone through the trouble of fixing bugs and not shared the fact that the bug existed in the first place or the actual fix.I think people in general do n't understand what many of these people are pissed off about .
If you spent days and weeks of your spare time tracking down a bug and fixing it only to find out shortly there after that company x had a patch 4 months ago you would be a little pissed off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What many of these guys and gals are pissed off about is that many companies have gone through the trouble of fixing bugs and not shared the fact that the bug existed in the first place or the actual fix.I think people in general don't understand what many of these people are pissed off about.
If you spent days and weeks of your spare time tracking down a bug and fixing it only to find out shortly there after that company x had a patch 4 months ago you would be a little pissed off.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167129</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167465</id>
	<title>Yes, they do.</title>
	<author>DoofusOfDeath</author>
	<datestamp>1243868640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...  enterprise IT still gives almost nothing back to the community<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>Even by just using OSS, enterprises increase the presumption of legitimacy and value of OSS in our culture.</p><p>Perhaps just as importantly, corporations and government agencies are getting a stake in having OSS software not hurt by the exercise of software patents.  This gives those companies and agencies an incentive to work against patent abuse.  Like what happened to members of Congress when the Blackberry patent issue came to a head.</p><p>So all things considered, I'd say they're contributing something at least as valuable as code.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... enterprise IT still gives almost nothing back to the community ...Even by just using OSS , enterprises increase the presumption of legitimacy and value of OSS in our culture.Perhaps just as importantly , corporations and government agencies are getting a stake in having OSS software not hurt by the exercise of software patents .
This gives those companies and agencies an incentive to work against patent abuse .
Like what happened to members of Congress when the Blackberry patent issue came to a head.So all things considered , I 'd say they 're contributing something at least as valuable as code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...  enterprise IT still gives almost nothing back to the community ...Even by just using OSS, enterprises increase the presumption of legitimacy and value of OSS in our culture.Perhaps just as importantly, corporations and government agencies are getting a stake in having OSS software not hurt by the exercise of software patents.
This gives those companies and agencies an incentive to work against patent abuse.
Like what happened to members of Congress when the Blackberry patent issue came to a head.So all things considered, I'd say they're contributing something at least as valuable as code.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167287</id>
	<title>Missing the point</title>
	<author>SirGarlon</author>
	<datestamp>1243867740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bill Gates called and wants his <a href="http://www.blinkenlights.com/classiccmp/gateswhine.html" title="blinkenlights.com">moral high ground</a> [blinkenlights.com] back.</p><p>Seriously, if you feel some sense of entitlement because you write software that other people use, a proprietary model is a more effective way to get what you deserve.  Though note, what you actually deserve and what you think you deserve may not be the same thing...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bill Gates called and wants his moral high ground [ blinkenlights.com ] back.Seriously , if you feel some sense of entitlement because you write software that other people use , a proprietary model is a more effective way to get what you deserve .
Though note , what you actually deserve and what you think you deserve may not be the same thing.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bill Gates called and wants his moral high ground [blinkenlights.com] back.Seriously, if you feel some sense of entitlement because you write software that other people use, a proprietary model is a more effective way to get what you deserve.
Though note, what you actually deserve and what you think you deserve may not be the same thing...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1311206_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167225
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167413
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1311206_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167091
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167659
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1311206_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167075
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28168177
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1311206_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167075
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28169185
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1311206_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167087
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28174499
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1311206_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167647
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28169967
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1311206_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167087
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167553
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1311206_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167173
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28168439
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1311206_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167075
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28168141
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1311206_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167379
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28170021
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1311206_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167075
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167345
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28169029
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1311206_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167075
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28172751
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1311206_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167379
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167529
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1311206_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167075
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28175183
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1311206_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167091
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28168441
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1311206_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167075
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28175785
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1311206_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167075
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167555
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1311206_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167075
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28168219
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1311206_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167395
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167635
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1311206_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167087
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28168351
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1311206_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167225
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28168677
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1311206_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167087
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28172987
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1311206_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167087
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28169749
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1311206_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167173
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167525
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1311206_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167113
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28168389
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1311206_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167173
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28169973
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1311206_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167389
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28168543
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28171649
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1311206_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167075
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28172827
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1311206_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167075
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167425
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1311206_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167087
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28168367
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1311206_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167647
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28168503
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1311206_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167087
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28182415
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1311206_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167173
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167815
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28177975
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1311206_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167087
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28168097
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1311206_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28169511
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1311206_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28171309
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1311206_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167087
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28170247
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1311206_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167075
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28169893
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1311206_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167337
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28177441
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1311206_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28172303
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1311206_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167075
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28170261
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1311206_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167997
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1311206_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28168841
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28170711
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1311206_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167173
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167855
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1311206_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167075
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28168823
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1311206_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28172889
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1311206_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28168359
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1311206_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28168841
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28177859
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1311206_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167173
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28177205
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1311206_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167075
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167461
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1311206_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28169071
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28170183
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1311206_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167087
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167289
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167803
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28168221
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1311206_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167087
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28169173
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28175895
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1311206_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28168489
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28180621
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1311206_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167075
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28171901
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1311206_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167173
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28172251
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1311206_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167173
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28174709
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1311206_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167389
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28168363
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1311206_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167087
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28168063
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1311206_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167737
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1311206_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167129
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28171927
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1311206_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167903
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1311206_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167173
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28179715
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1311206_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167075
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167743
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28168065
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1311206_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167075
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28168289
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1311206_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167075
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167217
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1311206_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167075
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167963
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1311206_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167087
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28171419
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1311206_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167707
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1311206_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167647
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28177383
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1311206_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28169503
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28170715
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1311206_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167225
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167519
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28177953
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1311206_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167179
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28168093
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1311206_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167173
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167989
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1311206_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167087
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28185173
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1311206_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167087
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28169727
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1311206_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167087
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28168781
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1311206_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167075
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167345
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28168053
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1311206_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167091
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28168025
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1311206_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167225
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28170241
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1311206_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167225
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28171207
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1311206.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28168489
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28180621
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1311206.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167567
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1311206.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167521
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1311206.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167143
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1311206.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167337
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28177441
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1311206.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167113
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28168389
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1311206.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28168841
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28177859
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28170711
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1311206.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28168203
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1311206.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28169071
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28170183
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1311206.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28169797
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1311206.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167173
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28179715
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167989
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28177205
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28172251
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28174709
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167525
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28168439
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167487
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167855
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167815
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28177975
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28169973
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1311206.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167225
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28171207
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167519
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28177953
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28168677
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167413
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28170241
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1311206.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167121
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167707
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1311206.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167075
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167555
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167345
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28168053
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28169029
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167425
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167963
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28168177
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167461
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28175183
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28172827
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28175785
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28168289
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28168219
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167743
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28168065
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28168141
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28169893
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28168823
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28172751
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28169185
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167217
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28171901
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28170261
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1311206.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167089
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28168359
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167903
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28171309
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167737
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167379
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167529
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28170021
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167389
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28168363
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28168543
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28171649
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28172889
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167997
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1311206.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167647
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28169967
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28168503
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28177383
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1311206.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28170063
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1311206.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167179
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28168093
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1311206.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167395
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167635
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1311206.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28169623
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1311206.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28168681
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1311206.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167091
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28168025
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28168441
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167659
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1311206.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167603
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1311206.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167631
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28172303
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28169511
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1311206.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167465
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1311206.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167673
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1311206.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28169503
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28170715
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1311206.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167087
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28168367
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167405
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28185173
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28171419
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28169173
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28175895
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28182415
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28172987
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28170247
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28168351
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28174499
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28168063
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28169749
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28168781
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167553
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167289
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167803
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28168221
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28168097
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28169727
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1311206.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28167129
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1311206.28171927
</commentlist>
</conversation>
