<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_14_1414259</id>
	<title>6 Reasons To License Software Under the (A/L)GPL</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1247581980000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Henry V .009 writes with a link to Zed Shaw's "newest rant," which gives a cogent description of his <a href="http://zedshaw.com/blog/2009-07-13.html">reasons for choosing the not-always-popular GPL</a> for his own code: <i>"Honestly, how many of you people who use open source tell your boss what you're using? How many of you tell investors that your entire operation is based on something one guy wrote in a few months? How many of you out there go to management and say, 'Hey, you know there's this guy Zed who wrote the software I'm using, why don't we hire him as a consultant?' You don't. None of you. You take the software, and use it like Excalibur to slay your dragon and then take the credit for it. You don't give out any credit, and in fact, I've ran into a vast majority of you who constantly try to say that I can't code as a way of covering your ass."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Henry V .009 writes with a link to Zed Shaw 's " newest rant , " which gives a cogent description of his reasons for choosing the not-always-popular GPL for his own code : " Honestly , how many of you people who use open source tell your boss what you 're using ?
How many of you tell investors that your entire operation is based on something one guy wrote in a few months ?
How many of you out there go to management and say , 'Hey , you know there 's this guy Zed who wrote the software I 'm using , why do n't we hire him as a consultant ?
' You do n't .
None of you .
You take the software , and use it like Excalibur to slay your dragon and then take the credit for it .
You do n't give out any credit , and in fact , I 've ran into a vast majority of you who constantly try to say that I ca n't code as a way of covering your ass .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Henry V .009 writes with a link to Zed Shaw's "newest rant," which gives a cogent description of his reasons for choosing the not-always-popular GPL for his own code: "Honestly, how many of you people who use open source tell your boss what you're using?
How many of you tell investors that your entire operation is based on something one guy wrote in a few months?
How many of you out there go to management and say, 'Hey, you know there's this guy Zed who wrote the software I'm using, why don't we hire him as a consultant?
' You don't.
None of you.
You take the software, and use it like Excalibur to slay your dragon and then take the credit for it.
You don't give out any credit, and in fact, I've ran into a vast majority of you who constantly try to say that I can't code as a way of covering your ass.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28690907</id>
	<title>wow</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247585700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can I get my random blog on the front page of Slashdot?</p><p>(Of course, if my name were Bennett Haselton, I could just use the front page of Slashdot as my blog.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can I get my random blog on the front page of Slashdot ?
( Of course , if my name were Bennett Haselton , I could just use the front page of Slashdot as my blog .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can I get my random blog on the front page of Slashdot?
(Of course, if my name were Bennett Haselton, I could just use the front page of Slashdot as my blog.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28693135</id>
	<title>Where is the license I want between GPL and BSD</title>
	<author>spitzak</author>
	<datestamp>1247595120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would like to see an officially-named and popular license that basically is "what people think the LGPL means". It says you can "use" the code for anything. In particular you are free to statically-link with other software and distribute the resulting binary. But modifications to the code <i>itself</i> must be redistributed with a matching license (you can still statically-link the result with your closed source, but you must include the changes you made to that code). There could be some minor restrictions, like the reverse-engineering-is-allowed clause, and possibly some clause to prevent the modification being to add a callback to a piece of secret code, though I really think people trying to cheat will be called out and lambasted so there is no real reason for such restrictions.</p><p>I believe this eliminates all the problems BSD proponents have with the GPL, in particular it is not "viral". It still prevents the embrace-and-extend problems the GPL tries to prevent.</p><p>The only accurate version is called "GPL with a linking exception", but this has a lenghty name, makes people think it is GPL, and there is no official wording of the "linking exception" so there are a hundred different versions.</p><p>The LGPL is not correct because of some strange effects that basically means your code must be a shared library. This is pointless for making a library that you want to be popular, as it pretty much requires it to be already installed on systems. It also locks down the ABI which is pretty bad if you are trying to improve the software. You can put a "linking exception" on the LGPL but then it is equivalent to the GPL plus linking exception and I prefer the shorter one.</p><p>Several people have suggested the MLPL (sp?) and similar ones. But all of them seem to have been written by GPL-haters and have added text to purposely make it incompatible with the GPL. I certainly do not want this, as I want my library to be popular and thus I want it to be usable by GPL code.</p><p>It does appear RMS likes the viral idea as the FSF refuses to put a short name on a license that does this.</p><p>What I really want to see is a popular 3/4-letter named license that says this, possibly endorsed by the FSF or another organization. There must be hundreds of proliferated licenses because software writers try to achieve this, where is the official one?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would like to see an officially-named and popular license that basically is " what people think the LGPL means " .
It says you can " use " the code for anything .
In particular you are free to statically-link with other software and distribute the resulting binary .
But modifications to the code itself must be redistributed with a matching license ( you can still statically-link the result with your closed source , but you must include the changes you made to that code ) .
There could be some minor restrictions , like the reverse-engineering-is-allowed clause , and possibly some clause to prevent the modification being to add a callback to a piece of secret code , though I really think people trying to cheat will be called out and lambasted so there is no real reason for such restrictions.I believe this eliminates all the problems BSD proponents have with the GPL , in particular it is not " viral " .
It still prevents the embrace-and-extend problems the GPL tries to prevent.The only accurate version is called " GPL with a linking exception " , but this has a lenghty name , makes people think it is GPL , and there is no official wording of the " linking exception " so there are a hundred different versions.The LGPL is not correct because of some strange effects that basically means your code must be a shared library .
This is pointless for making a library that you want to be popular , as it pretty much requires it to be already installed on systems .
It also locks down the ABI which is pretty bad if you are trying to improve the software .
You can put a " linking exception " on the LGPL but then it is equivalent to the GPL plus linking exception and I prefer the shorter one.Several people have suggested the MLPL ( sp ?
) and similar ones .
But all of them seem to have been written by GPL-haters and have added text to purposely make it incompatible with the GPL .
I certainly do not want this , as I want my library to be popular and thus I want it to be usable by GPL code.It does appear RMS likes the viral idea as the FSF refuses to put a short name on a license that does this.What I really want to see is a popular 3/4-letter named license that says this , possibly endorsed by the FSF or another organization .
There must be hundreds of proliferated licenses because software writers try to achieve this , where is the official one ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would like to see an officially-named and popular license that basically is "what people think the LGPL means".
It says you can "use" the code for anything.
In particular you are free to statically-link with other software and distribute the resulting binary.
But modifications to the code itself must be redistributed with a matching license (you can still statically-link the result with your closed source, but you must include the changes you made to that code).
There could be some minor restrictions, like the reverse-engineering-is-allowed clause, and possibly some clause to prevent the modification being to add a callback to a piece of secret code, though I really think people trying to cheat will be called out and lambasted so there is no real reason for such restrictions.I believe this eliminates all the problems BSD proponents have with the GPL, in particular it is not "viral".
It still prevents the embrace-and-extend problems the GPL tries to prevent.The only accurate version is called "GPL with a linking exception", but this has a lenghty name, makes people think it is GPL, and there is no official wording of the "linking exception" so there are a hundred different versions.The LGPL is not correct because of some strange effects that basically means your code must be a shared library.
This is pointless for making a library that you want to be popular, as it pretty much requires it to be already installed on systems.
It also locks down the ABI which is pretty bad if you are trying to improve the software.
You can put a "linking exception" on the LGPL but then it is equivalent to the GPL plus linking exception and I prefer the shorter one.Several people have suggested the MLPL (sp?
) and similar ones.
But all of them seem to have been written by GPL-haters and have added text to purposely make it incompatible with the GPL.
I certainly do not want this, as I want my library to be popular and thus I want it to be usable by GPL code.It does appear RMS likes the viral idea as the FSF refuses to put a short name on a license that does this.What I really want to see is a popular 3/4-letter named license that says this, possibly endorsed by the FSF or another organization.
There must be hundreds of proliferated licenses because software writers try to achieve this, where is the official one?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691659</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691501</id>
	<title>Why to not use GPL</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247588460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because you'll never get recognized in a corporate environment.  It doesn't matter if the GPL portion is 1 line out of a million written by paid developers, all those millions of lines have to be made available because they were so "blessed" with your greatness for a tiny portion of the project.  There are no shortage of non-viraly licensed projects out there that I don't need your GPL version.</p><p>There are a ridiculous number of GPL projects that are essentially trying to copyright "hello world."  And an even more absurd number of GPL projects out there that just simply don't work.  You can't throw trash out there, expect everyone else to fix it for you and then demand credit for "your work."</p><p>If you license your code in away that doesn't muck with how I can license my code then I'll be happy to take a look, fix it, and if it's apparent you made a real effort to get your project to work, I'll give you credit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because you 'll never get recognized in a corporate environment .
It does n't matter if the GPL portion is 1 line out of a million written by paid developers , all those millions of lines have to be made available because they were so " blessed " with your greatness for a tiny portion of the project .
There are no shortage of non-viraly licensed projects out there that I do n't need your GPL version.There are a ridiculous number of GPL projects that are essentially trying to copyright " hello world .
" And an even more absurd number of GPL projects out there that just simply do n't work .
You ca n't throw trash out there , expect everyone else to fix it for you and then demand credit for " your work .
" If you license your code in away that does n't muck with how I can license my code then I 'll be happy to take a look , fix it , and if it 's apparent you made a real effort to get your project to work , I 'll give you credit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because you'll never get recognized in a corporate environment.
It doesn't matter if the GPL portion is 1 line out of a million written by paid developers, all those millions of lines have to be made available because they were so "blessed" with your greatness for a tiny portion of the project.
There are no shortage of non-viraly licensed projects out there that I don't need your GPL version.There are a ridiculous number of GPL projects that are essentially trying to copyright "hello world.
"  And an even more absurd number of GPL projects out there that just simply don't work.
You can't throw trash out there, expect everyone else to fix it for you and then demand credit for "your work.
"If you license your code in away that doesn't muck with how I can license my code then I'll be happy to take a look, fix it, and if it's apparent you made a real effort to get your project to work, I'll give you credit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28698579</id>
	<title>CAUTION WARNING lamson-0.9.4.tar.gz has VIRUS!</title>
	<author>itsybitsy</author>
	<datestamp>1247579340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The lamson project has a supposedly accidental VIRAL PAYLOAD AT <a href="http://launchpad.net/lamson" title="launchpad.net" rel="nofollow">http://launchpad.net/lamson</a> [launchpad.net] in the file lamson-0.9.4.tar.gz with 7 copies of the "Virus identified I-Worm/Mydoom.BE";"Infected" virus and 1 "Trojan horse Dropper.Generic\_c.GH" trojan horse reported by AVG.</p><p>Confirmed by hand.</p><p>Reported to Zed Shaw already who claims it was an accidental inclusion in spam test data.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The lamson project has a supposedly accidental VIRAL PAYLOAD AT http : //launchpad.net/lamson [ launchpad.net ] in the file lamson-0.9.4.tar.gz with 7 copies of the " Virus identified I-Worm/Mydoom.BE " ; " Infected " virus and 1 " Trojan horse Dropper.Generic \ _c.GH " trojan horse reported by AVG.Confirmed by hand.Reported to Zed Shaw already who claims it was an accidental inclusion in spam test data .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The lamson project has a supposedly accidental VIRAL PAYLOAD AT http://launchpad.net/lamson [launchpad.net] in the file lamson-0.9.4.tar.gz with 7 copies of the "Virus identified I-Worm/Mydoom.BE";"Infected" virus and 1 "Trojan horse Dropper.Generic\_c.GH" trojan horse reported by AVG.Confirmed by hand.Reported to Zed Shaw already who claims it was an accidental inclusion in spam test data.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691217</id>
	<title>What</title>
	<author>Capt James McCarthy</author>
	<datestamp>1247587080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You mean people are dishonest and misleading? Next thing you'll tell me is that politicians lie.</p><p>Technically, it's part of the risk of writing OSS. You know going in that someone somewhere will capitalize and profit from your hard work and sweat. If you feel that is the case and it bothers you, change the license and charge for the product. And when an OSS is used, I see it more used as a starting point to tackle a unique issue that can't be solved by any existing product. When that comes into play, whatever code I needed to add/change, I submit it back to the OSS developer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean people are dishonest and misleading ?
Next thing you 'll tell me is that politicians lie.Technically , it 's part of the risk of writing OSS .
You know going in that someone somewhere will capitalize and profit from your hard work and sweat .
If you feel that is the case and it bothers you , change the license and charge for the product .
And when an OSS is used , I see it more used as a starting point to tackle a unique issue that ca n't be solved by any existing product .
When that comes into play , whatever code I needed to add/change , I submit it back to the OSS developer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean people are dishonest and misleading?
Next thing you'll tell me is that politicians lie.Technically, it's part of the risk of writing OSS.
You know going in that someone somewhere will capitalize and profit from your hard work and sweat.
If you feel that is the case and it bothers you, change the license and charge for the product.
And when an OSS is used, I see it more used as a starting point to tackle a unique issue that can't be solved by any existing product.
When that comes into play, whatever code I needed to add/change, I submit it back to the OSS developer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28692741</id>
	<title>Re:Nobody hired you?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247593680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Actually, having met Zed once, I was surprised at how personable the guy was--I'd be surprised if there was a group he <em>couldn't</em> work with. I chalked it up to the Maddox Effect: <a href="http://maddox.xmission.com/" title="xmission.com" rel="nofollow">Maddox</a> [xmission.com] writes as a bombastic douchebag, but is a pretty shy and soft-spoken dude in person.</p></div><p>Yes, but if a potential employer can google your Maddox Effect rants, they're not going to give you the chance to screw up a team.  In other words, if you want to be a professional, be professional. Duh.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , having met Zed once , I was surprised at how personable the guy was--I 'd be surprised if there was a group he could n't work with .
I chalked it up to the Maddox Effect : Maddox [ xmission.com ] writes as a bombastic douchebag , but is a pretty shy and soft-spoken dude in person.Yes , but if a potential employer can google your Maddox Effect rants , they 're not going to give you the chance to screw up a team .
In other words , if you want to be a professional , be professional .
Duh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, having met Zed once, I was surprised at how personable the guy was--I'd be surprised if there was a group he couldn't work with.
I chalked it up to the Maddox Effect: Maddox [xmission.com] writes as a bombastic douchebag, but is a pretty shy and soft-spoken dude in person.Yes, but if a potential employer can google your Maddox Effect rants, they're not going to give you the chance to screw up a team.
In other words, if you want to be a professional, be professional.
Duh.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691787</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28690997</id>
	<title>Not really for that</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247586060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Licensing as BSD, MIT or Creative Commons Attribution is as much valid as a way to get recognition for your work as licensing as GPL. The only thing the later adds is that not only your work can be freely (as in the 4 freedoms) distributed but also the improvements on your work must also be.<br> <br>

If recognition is all you want, by all means, just choose any attribution license. If having your work used by the most people is more important, use a BSD style one. Now, if your goal is to assure that your code will be always free, use GPL, LGPL or AGPL.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Licensing as BSD , MIT or Creative Commons Attribution is as much valid as a way to get recognition for your work as licensing as GPL .
The only thing the later adds is that not only your work can be freely ( as in the 4 freedoms ) distributed but also the improvements on your work must also be .
If recognition is all you want , by all means , just choose any attribution license .
If having your work used by the most people is more important , use a BSD style one .
Now , if your goal is to assure that your code will be always free , use GPL , LGPL or AGPL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Licensing as BSD, MIT or Creative Commons Attribution is as much valid as a way to get recognition for your work as licensing as GPL.
The only thing the later adds is that not only your work can be freely (as in the 4 freedoms) distributed but also the improvements on your work must also be.
If recognition is all you want, by all means, just choose any attribution license.
If having your work used by the most people is more important, use a BSD style one.
Now, if your goal is to assure that your code will be always free, use GPL, LGPL or AGPL.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28694809</id>
	<title>Flipping</title>
	<author>sesshomaru</author>
	<datestamp>1247602500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <em><br>There has been a change in the software industry since about 2000. Id put the mark at around Googles IPO actually, but I cant say exactly when. What I can say is that the current way technology companies are grown promotes an attitude of exploiting open source rather than contributing.</em></p><p><em><br>I cant really blame these companies though, they are designed to flip. A VC backed firm is almost always going to be setup for a short-term gain in the hopes of bringing a handsome return on investment later. For a VC, expecting a payout in 20 years is unheard of, especially if you plan on doing it without an IPO and stock options for everyone involved.<br></em></p></div></blockquote><p>This actually, and sadly, just doesn't apply to software, it applies to just about everything manufactured by human labor in the United States.  Venture Capital seems to follow this plan:</p><p>1. Find thing that looks like a hot prospect.</p><p>2. Offer to back thing with preciousss capital.</p><p>3. Cut costs and leave a shell of the thing, but hide this fact from investors.</p><p>4. IPO and abandon ship! (Replace IPO with "Create Derivative" to explain how mortgages went from something close to a AAA asset to "Toxic Assets.")</p><p>People aren't trying (well, mostly, and Yog-Sothoth bless the folks who are) to create going concerns, they are trying to create Potemkin Villages to fool people with more money than sense.  Google is actually a bad example here.  They are a stable and successful corporation that does quality work and the company is a going concern.</p><p>We could structure the laws to really, really punish the flippers and reward those who are making an actual working company.  (It seems currently to be the other way around.) But we have the problem of a government composed of people who would gladly sell our children to zoos for meat, and the fact that the VC people have money and really like the current system.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There has been a change in the software industry since about 2000 .
Id put the mark at around Googles IPO actually , but I cant say exactly when .
What I can say is that the current way technology companies are grown promotes an attitude of exploiting open source rather than contributing.I cant really blame these companies though , they are designed to flip .
A VC backed firm is almost always going to be setup for a short-term gain in the hopes of bringing a handsome return on investment later .
For a VC , expecting a payout in 20 years is unheard of , especially if you plan on doing it without an IPO and stock options for everyone involved.This actually , and sadly , just does n't apply to software , it applies to just about everything manufactured by human labor in the United States .
Venture Capital seems to follow this plan : 1 .
Find thing that looks like a hot prospect.2 .
Offer to back thing with preciousss capital.3 .
Cut costs and leave a shell of the thing , but hide this fact from investors.4 .
IPO and abandon ship !
( Replace IPO with " Create Derivative " to explain how mortgages went from something close to a AAA asset to " Toxic Assets .
" ) People are n't trying ( well , mostly , and Yog-Sothoth bless the folks who are ) to create going concerns , they are trying to create Potemkin Villages to fool people with more money than sense .
Google is actually a bad example here .
They are a stable and successful corporation that does quality work and the company is a going concern.We could structure the laws to really , really punish the flippers and reward those who are making an actual working company .
( It seems currently to be the other way around .
) But we have the problem of a government composed of people who would gladly sell our children to zoos for meat , and the fact that the VC people have money and really like the current system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> There has been a change in the software industry since about 2000.
Id put the mark at around Googles IPO actually, but I cant say exactly when.
What I can say is that the current way technology companies are grown promotes an attitude of exploiting open source rather than contributing.I cant really blame these companies though, they are designed to flip.
A VC backed firm is almost always going to be setup for a short-term gain in the hopes of bringing a handsome return on investment later.
For a VC, expecting a payout in 20 years is unheard of, especially if you plan on doing it without an IPO and stock options for everyone involved.This actually, and sadly, just doesn't apply to software, it applies to just about everything manufactured by human labor in the United States.
Venture Capital seems to follow this plan:1.
Find thing that looks like a hot prospect.2.
Offer to back thing with preciousss capital.3.
Cut costs and leave a shell of the thing, but hide this fact from investors.4.
IPO and abandon ship!
(Replace IPO with "Create Derivative" to explain how mortgages went from something close to a AAA asset to "Toxic Assets.
")People aren't trying (well, mostly, and Yog-Sothoth bless the folks who are) to create going concerns, they are trying to create Potemkin Villages to fool people with more money than sense.
Google is actually a bad example here.
They are a stable and successful corporation that does quality work and the company is a going concern.We could structure the laws to really, really punish the flippers and reward those who are making an actual working company.
(It seems currently to be the other way around.
) But we have the problem of a government composed of people who would gladly sell our children to zoos for meat, and the fact that the VC people have money and really like the current system.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691787</id>
	<title>Re:Nobody hired you?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247589540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, having met Zed once, I was surprised at how personable the guy was--I'd be surprised if there was a group he <em>couldn't</em> work with. I chalked it up to the Maddox Effect: <a href="http://maddox.xmission.com/" title="xmission.com">Maddox</a> [xmission.com] writes as a bombastic douchebag, but is a pretty shy and soft-spoken dude in person.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , having met Zed once , I was surprised at how personable the guy was--I 'd be surprised if there was a group he could n't work with .
I chalked it up to the Maddox Effect : Maddox [ xmission.com ] writes as a bombastic douchebag , but is a pretty shy and soft-spoken dude in person .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, having met Zed once, I was surprised at how personable the guy was--I'd be surprised if there was a group he couldn't work with.
I chalked it up to the Maddox Effect: Maddox [xmission.com] writes as a bombastic douchebag, but is a pretty shy and soft-spoken dude in person.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691157</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691033</id>
	<title>Money quote</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247586240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But the days of quick-flip corporations and ingrate programmers making money on my software are over. My new motto is:</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Open source to open source, corporation to corporation.</p><p>If you do open source, you&#226;(TM)re my hero and I support you. If you&#226;(TM)re a corporation, let&#226;(TM)s talk business.</p></div><p>A very sensible position, IMHO.  Dual-licensing always seemed like a no-brainer to me.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But the days of quick-flip corporations and ingrate programmers making money on my software are over .
My new motto is :         Open source to open source , corporation to corporation.If you do open source , you   ( TM ) re my hero and I support you .
If you   ( TM ) re a corporation , let   ( TM ) s talk business.A very sensible position , IMHO .
Dual-licensing always seemed like a no-brainer to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But the days of quick-flip corporations and ingrate programmers making money on my software are over.
My new motto is:
        Open source to open source, corporation to corporation.If you do open source, youâ(TM)re my hero and I support you.
If youâ(TM)re a corporation, letâ(TM)s talk business.A very sensible position, IMHO.
Dual-licensing always seemed like a no-brainer to me.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691389</id>
	<title>Give me an example</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247587920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"How many of you tell investors that your entire operation is based on something one guy wrote in a few months?"</p><p>Yeah, I'm sure there are so many companies like this. Maybe small companies use OSS, but do these small companies have a developer on staff? I don't think so.  This sounds like a fantasy made up by some little kid who has no clue how the things really work. Show me one company that has it's "entire operation" based on software simple enough to be made by one person in a few months.  I'd love to see it.</p><p>I rate this story a -5 Delusional Troll.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" How many of you tell investors that your entire operation is based on something one guy wrote in a few months ?
" Yeah , I 'm sure there are so many companies like this .
Maybe small companies use OSS , but do these small companies have a developer on staff ?
I do n't think so .
This sounds like a fantasy made up by some little kid who has no clue how the things really work .
Show me one company that has it 's " entire operation " based on software simple enough to be made by one person in a few months .
I 'd love to see it.I rate this story a -5 Delusional Troll .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"How many of you tell investors that your entire operation is based on something one guy wrote in a few months?
"Yeah, I'm sure there are so many companies like this.
Maybe small companies use OSS, but do these small companies have a developer on staff?
I don't think so.
This sounds like a fantasy made up by some little kid who has no clue how the things really work.
Show me one company that has it's "entire operation" based on software simple enough to be made by one person in a few months.
I'd love to see it.I rate this story a -5 Delusional Troll.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691611</id>
	<title>Fuck off, Zed (whoever the hell you are)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247588880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You don't. None of you. You take the software, and use it like Excalibur to slay your dragon and then take the credit for it.</p></div><p>No, asshole, some of us think it's important for our employer to know which third party libraries and tools we're using (whether they are open source or not), so they aren't blindsided with a lawsuit.  I conjecture that you're projecting your own need to be the hero onto the rest of us.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't .
None of you .
You take the software , and use it like Excalibur to slay your dragon and then take the credit for it.No , asshole , some of us think it 's important for our employer to know which third party libraries and tools we 're using ( whether they are open source or not ) , so they are n't blindsided with a lawsuit .
I conjecture that you 're projecting your own need to be the hero onto the rest of us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't.
None of you.
You take the software, and use it like Excalibur to slay your dragon and then take the credit for it.No, asshole, some of us think it's important for our employer to know which third party libraries and tools we're using (whether they are open source or not), so they aren't blindsided with a lawsuit.
I conjecture that you're projecting your own need to be the hero onto the rest of us.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28694279</id>
	<title>Re:Not really for that</title>
	<author>Zancarius</author>
	<datestamp>1247599860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Many times I've seen people fighting over the GPL/BSD issue here and not ever once they agreed beforehand what do they mean by "users", "freedom", "better", etc. - heavy object throwing took over.</p></div></blockquote><p>I've always likened it to the BSD license being "free, as in beer"--free beer means you can do whatever you want with it, even if you want to resell it later. The GPL, on the other hand, is "free, as in speech." You can't really "sell" free speech, and anyone borrowing your ideas is doing exactly that--and they're free to build upon them.</p><p>Outrageous? Maybe. Off-base? Probably. It seems easier to use familiar analogies when explaining licenses to those who haven't any clue what this BSGPMOZWhat license cruft is in the first place.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Many times I 've seen people fighting over the GPL/BSD issue here and not ever once they agreed beforehand what do they mean by " users " , " freedom " , " better " , etc .
- heavy object throwing took over.I 've always likened it to the BSD license being " free , as in beer " --free beer means you can do whatever you want with it , even if you want to resell it later .
The GPL , on the other hand , is " free , as in speech .
" You ca n't really " sell " free speech , and anyone borrowing your ideas is doing exactly that--and they 're free to build upon them.Outrageous ?
Maybe. Off-base ?
Probably. It seems easier to use familiar analogies when explaining licenses to those who have n't any clue what this BSGPMOZWhat license cruft is in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many times I've seen people fighting over the GPL/BSD issue here and not ever once they agreed beforehand what do they mean by "users", "freedom", "better", etc.
- heavy object throwing took over.I've always likened it to the BSD license being "free, as in beer"--free beer means you can do whatever you want with it, even if you want to resell it later.
The GPL, on the other hand, is "free, as in speech.
" You can't really "sell" free speech, and anyone borrowing your ideas is doing exactly that--and they're free to build upon them.Outrageous?
Maybe. Off-base?
Probably. It seems easier to use familiar analogies when explaining licenses to those who haven't any clue what this BSGPMOZWhat license cruft is in the first place.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691659</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691303</id>
	<title>Re:agreed</title>
	<author>HonIsCool</author>
	<datestamp>1247587500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, if only those BSD and MIT licenses would somehow protect the credit of the authors. I don't know. Maybe they could have a condition saying something like: redistribution must reproduce the copyright notices. If only...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , if only those BSD and MIT licenses would somehow protect the credit of the authors .
I do n't know .
Maybe they could have a condition saying something like : redistribution must reproduce the copyright notices .
If only.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, if only those BSD and MIT licenses would somehow protect the credit of the authors.
I don't know.
Maybe they could have a condition saying something like: redistribution must reproduce the copyright notices.
If only...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691035</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691041</id>
	<title>Re:Awww, What Happened to Badass Zed?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247586240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I will send you $20 to stay in a hole, write software and restrict yourself from communicating with the outside world. Really, the world would be a better place.</p></div></blockquote><p>Wow, that's a bit harsh.  Who's the asshole again?...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I will send you $ 20 to stay in a hole , write software and restrict yourself from communicating with the outside world .
Really , the world would be a better place.Wow , that 's a bit harsh .
Who 's the asshole again ? .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I will send you $20 to stay in a hole, write software and restrict yourself from communicating with the outside world.
Really, the world would be a better place.Wow, that's a bit harsh.
Who's the asshole again?...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28690911</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28694419</id>
	<title>Re:agreed</title>
	<author>ClosedSource</author>
	<datestamp>1247600520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The BSD, MIT licenses (even if more open) are for mugs who end up having their code "stolen" !<br>By this I mean that some half-witted asshat will grab the source tree, make some minor changes to it and then resell it as his own work."</p><p>So you're saying that those who put BSD code into GPL'd projects were stealing?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The BSD , MIT licenses ( even if more open ) are for mugs who end up having their code " stolen " ! By this I mean that some half-witted asshat will grab the source tree , make some minor changes to it and then resell it as his own work .
" So you 're saying that those who put BSD code into GPL 'd projects were stealing ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The BSD, MIT licenses (even if more open) are for mugs who end up having their code "stolen" !By this I mean that some half-witted asshat will grab the source tree, make some minor changes to it and then resell it as his own work.
"So you're saying that those who put BSD code into GPL'd projects were stealing?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691035</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28690935</id>
	<title>Don't bust on my excuse.</title>
	<author>gubers33</author>
	<datestamp>1247585820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can't code is my excuse! Don't go messing that up for me! I have a good thing going.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't code is my excuse !
Do n't go messing that up for me !
I have a good thing going .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't code is my excuse!
Don't go messing that up for me!
I have a good thing going.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28694829</id>
	<title>Why GPL if you want to make money?</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1247602620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I love open source, but companies? Companies are going to have to pay from now on. That's how economics works. If it's good enough for you to use, why then it's good enough for you to pay for it.</i></p><p>I had a number of problems with this but I'll just use this one.  A person wants to use the GPL because they want to get paid?  Where does the GPL say the programmer has to be paid.  I may be wrong but I don't recall anything like that in the license.</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I love open source , but companies ?
Companies are going to have to pay from now on .
That 's how economics works .
If it 's good enough for you to use , why then it 's good enough for you to pay for it.I had a number of problems with this but I 'll just use this one .
A person wants to use the GPL because they want to get paid ?
Where does the GPL say the programmer has to be paid .
I may be wrong but I do n't recall anything like that in the license .
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love open source, but companies?
Companies are going to have to pay from now on.
That's how economics works.
If it's good enough for you to use, why then it's good enough for you to pay for it.I had a number of problems with this but I'll just use this one.
A person wants to use the GPL because they want to get paid?
Where does the GPL say the programmer has to be paid.
I may be wrong but I don't recall anything like that in the license.
Falcon</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28693241</id>
	<title>Re:Not really for that</title>
	<author>nacturation</author>
	<datestamp>1247595540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>... not only your work can be freely (as in the 4 freedoms)...</p></div><p>Man, everybody always ignores the fifth freedom.  What's up with that?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... not only your work can be freely ( as in the 4 freedoms ) ...Man , everybody always ignores the fifth freedom .
What 's up with that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ... not only your work can be freely (as in the 4 freedoms)...Man, everybody always ignores the fifth freedom.
What's up with that?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28690997</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28692969</id>
	<title>Re:I do!</title>
	<author>derGoldstein</author>
	<datestamp>1247594520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>
While I don't like the "plagiarize" comment in particular, I do agree that it's a plus to point out to your employer that you've implemented OSS. If they have half a brain, they will recognize that being able to implement/integrate OSS into a project is a *credit* to the developer. It means that they can spot, and take advantage of, resources that don't need to be constructed from scratch.<br> <br>

If your employer wants you to do X, which one of the following answers will they most like to hear:<br>
1) I can get it done with this $5k software. Just buy it and I'll get to work.<br>
2) I can get it done in 6 months, provided I have 2 additional programmers to work with me.<br>
3) Sure, I know of this FOSS project that'll get the job done. You'll have it up and running over the weekend.

<br> <br>
As I said, it only takes "half a brain".</htmltext>
<tokenext>While I do n't like the " plagiarize " comment in particular , I do agree that it 's a plus to point out to your employer that you 've implemented OSS .
If they have half a brain , they will recognize that being able to implement/integrate OSS into a project is a * credit * to the developer .
It means that they can spot , and take advantage of , resources that do n't need to be constructed from scratch .
If your employer wants you to do X , which one of the following answers will they most like to hear : 1 ) I can get it done with this $ 5k software .
Just buy it and I 'll get to work .
2 ) I can get it done in 6 months , provided I have 2 additional programmers to work with me .
3 ) Sure , I know of this FOSS project that 'll get the job done .
You 'll have it up and running over the weekend .
As I said , it only takes " half a brain " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
While I don't like the "plagiarize" comment in particular, I do agree that it's a plus to point out to your employer that you've implemented OSS.
If they have half a brain, they will recognize that being able to implement/integrate OSS into a project is a *credit* to the developer.
It means that they can spot, and take advantage of, resources that don't need to be constructed from scratch.
If your employer wants you to do X, which one of the following answers will they most like to hear:
1) I can get it done with this $5k software.
Just buy it and I'll get to work.
2) I can get it done in 6 months, provided I have 2 additional programmers to work with me.
3) Sure, I know of this FOSS project that'll get the job done.
You'll have it up and running over the weekend.
As I said, it only takes "half a brain".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691073</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28692037</id>
	<title>This seems to be a fairly common problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247590680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Tech types that think they are god and this means that they shouldn't have to be nice to anyone. No, sorry, not how it works. While there are some very few jobs where you don't have to deal with other people at all, there are extremely rare. For the most part, any job involved people skills. This is particularly true in the case of tech jobs. In every tech job, you are customer support to some extent or another. It may be supporting people internally only, but it is still support and thus people skills still matter.</p><p>Now great tech skills can make up for an attitude to some extent. People are often willing to put up with some shit from someone if that someone does good work. However, at some point, it doesn't matter. If you are just a caustic asshole, it doesn't matter how good you are, they'll decide they can find someone else to do the job who isn't such a problem.</p><p>I'm not saying it is easy, I certainly am not the master of people skills, but it is something to be conscious of and work on, rather than feeling like you shouldn't have to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tech types that think they are god and this means that they should n't have to be nice to anyone .
No , sorry , not how it works .
While there are some very few jobs where you do n't have to deal with other people at all , there are extremely rare .
For the most part , any job involved people skills .
This is particularly true in the case of tech jobs .
In every tech job , you are customer support to some extent or another .
It may be supporting people internally only , but it is still support and thus people skills still matter.Now great tech skills can make up for an attitude to some extent .
People are often willing to put up with some shit from someone if that someone does good work .
However , at some point , it does n't matter .
If you are just a caustic asshole , it does n't matter how good you are , they 'll decide they can find someone else to do the job who is n't such a problem.I 'm not saying it is easy , I certainly am not the master of people skills , but it is something to be conscious of and work on , rather than feeling like you should n't have to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tech types that think they are god and this means that they shouldn't have to be nice to anyone.
No, sorry, not how it works.
While there are some very few jobs where you don't have to deal with other people at all, there are extremely rare.
For the most part, any job involved people skills.
This is particularly true in the case of tech jobs.
In every tech job, you are customer support to some extent or another.
It may be supporting people internally only, but it is still support and thus people skills still matter.Now great tech skills can make up for an attitude to some extent.
People are often willing to put up with some shit from someone if that someone does good work.
However, at some point, it doesn't matter.
If you are just a caustic asshole, it doesn't matter how good you are, they'll decide they can find someone else to do the job who isn't such a problem.I'm not saying it is easy, I certainly am not the master of people skills, but it is something to be conscious of and work on, rather than feeling like you shouldn't have to.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691157</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28692531</id>
	<title>No prominenent alternate licensing notice</title>
	<author>burris</author>
	<datestamp>1247592720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After all the bluster about wanting to get credit, code, and/or compensation, I looked over the site for Lamson, Zed's MTA, and didn't see anything to the effect of "if you like this code but the distribution license is incompatible with your business goals, please contact me to discuss an alternate license with reasonable terms."  It's not in the README, either.  Anyone who can't use the GPL is probably just going to keep looking.  After all, trying to convince someone to change their license is being a "gigantic jerk," right?</p><p>Not too smart, Zed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After all the bluster about wanting to get credit , code , and/or compensation , I looked over the site for Lamson , Zed 's MTA , and did n't see anything to the effect of " if you like this code but the distribution license is incompatible with your business goals , please contact me to discuss an alternate license with reasonable terms .
" It 's not in the README , either .
Anyone who ca n't use the GPL is probably just going to keep looking .
After all , trying to convince someone to change their license is being a " gigantic jerk , " right ? Not too smart , Zed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After all the bluster about wanting to get credit, code, and/or compensation, I looked over the site for Lamson, Zed's MTA, and didn't see anything to the effect of "if you like this code but the distribution license is incompatible with your business goals, please contact me to discuss an alternate license with reasonable terms.
"  It's not in the README, either.
Anyone who can't use the GPL is probably just going to keep looking.
After all, trying to convince someone to change their license is being a "gigantic jerk," right?Not too smart, Zed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691391</id>
	<title>What probably happened</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247587920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>HR Person (to Zed): "We see on your resume that one has paid you to do rails development in the last year and a half, and that you've been writing some "mongrel" thing in your spare time. We're really looking for  someone with more relevant and recent Ruby-on-Rails experience."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>HR Person ( to Zed ) : " We see on your resume that one has paid you to do rails development in the last year and a half , and that you 've been writing some " mongrel " thing in your spare time .
We 're really looking for someone with more relevant and recent Ruby-on-Rails experience .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>HR Person (to Zed): "We see on your resume that one has paid you to do rails development in the last year and a half, and that you've been writing some "mongrel" thing in your spare time.
We're really looking for  someone with more relevant and recent Ruby-on-Rails experience.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691825</id>
	<title>Because I want to...</title>
	<author>mortonda</author>
	<datestamp>1247589720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the article:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>That's my first reason I use the GPL:</p><p>Because I want to, and if you disagree with it then don't use my software. It's as simple as that.</p></div><p>You know Zed, that's all you have to say.  The rest was at best... silly.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the article : That 's my first reason I use the GPL : Because I want to , and if you disagree with it then do n't use my software .
It 's as simple as that.You know Zed , that 's all you have to say .
The rest was at best... silly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the article:That's my first reason I use the GPL:Because I want to, and if you disagree with it then don't use my software.
It's as simple as that.You know Zed, that's all you have to say.
The rest was at best... silly.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691811</id>
	<title>"I Dont Want To Be Ignored Again" he says.</title>
	<author>Qbertino</author>
	<datestamp>1247589660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He says: 'I Dont Want To Be Ignored Again'.</p><p>Well then maybe you shouldn't release your software with no marketing what-so-ever?</p><p>First of all: You wrote a HTTP library for Ruby. Big fat hairy deal. Frankly, I never knew and I couldn't care less. Second of all: The Rails crowd gained traction and scored bizar amounts of hype for one reason - and one reason *only*: They had, by standards of open source - a massive marketing campaign to push Rails into the FOSS webdev field. They have a website that, for *once* in the FOSS field, didn't look like shit (and changed the FOSS-Project-Website &amp; Enduser Awareness Game for ever - God bless them!), they pratically invented the concept of screencasts to showcase their FOSS webkit in short understandable fashion and they abandoned all snotty-nosed elitist crap in favour of building a community for webdevs while at the same time doing huge inroads into the Java &amp; academic community who needed Ruby to boost their ego and to seperate themselves from the PHP crowd. And who, until the rails hype, weren't aware of any FOSS webkits. Of which Rails, btw., isn't a particuarly new, good or innovative one anyway. Other kits from ages ago are still leading the field by far technology wise - with nobody careing. Due to, guess what?, no marketing.</p><p>Your conclusions are wrong, Mr. Shaw. People care squat about what you licence your software under. If you want money, you demand money. If you want attention, you demand attention. Rails did it, you didn't. Your Mongrel site isn't bad, by FOSS standards that is, but it doesn't look particuarly interesting either. Learn you lesson, licence with whatever you want - wether it's the GPL or not *nobody* of *any* importance fucking cares - and do a little marketing and reasearch before you push your next FOSS tool. That, and nothing else, will enable a business on top of it.</p><p>My 2 Euros.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He says : 'I Dont Want To Be Ignored Again'.Well then maybe you should n't release your software with no marketing what-so-ever ? First of all : You wrote a HTTP library for Ruby .
Big fat hairy deal .
Frankly , I never knew and I could n't care less .
Second of all : The Rails crowd gained traction and scored bizar amounts of hype for one reason - and one reason * only * : They had , by standards of open source - a massive marketing campaign to push Rails into the FOSS webdev field .
They have a website that , for * once * in the FOSS field , did n't look like shit ( and changed the FOSS-Project-Website &amp; Enduser Awareness Game for ever - God bless them !
) , they pratically invented the concept of screencasts to showcase their FOSS webkit in short understandable fashion and they abandoned all snotty-nosed elitist crap in favour of building a community for webdevs while at the same time doing huge inroads into the Java &amp; academic community who needed Ruby to boost their ego and to seperate themselves from the PHP crowd .
And who , until the rails hype , were n't aware of any FOSS webkits .
Of which Rails , btw. , is n't a particuarly new , good or innovative one anyway .
Other kits from ages ago are still leading the field by far technology wise - with nobody careing .
Due to , guess what ? , no marketing.Your conclusions are wrong , Mr. Shaw. People care squat about what you licence your software under .
If you want money , you demand money .
If you want attention , you demand attention .
Rails did it , you did n't .
Your Mongrel site is n't bad , by FOSS standards that is , but it does n't look particuarly interesting either .
Learn you lesson , licence with whatever you want - wether it 's the GPL or not * nobody * of * any * importance fucking cares - and do a little marketing and reasearch before you push your next FOSS tool .
That , and nothing else , will enable a business on top of it.My 2 Euros .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He says: 'I Dont Want To Be Ignored Again'.Well then maybe you shouldn't release your software with no marketing what-so-ever?First of all: You wrote a HTTP library for Ruby.
Big fat hairy deal.
Frankly, I never knew and I couldn't care less.
Second of all: The Rails crowd gained traction and scored bizar amounts of hype for one reason - and one reason *only*: They had, by standards of open source - a massive marketing campaign to push Rails into the FOSS webdev field.
They have a website that, for *once* in the FOSS field, didn't look like shit (and changed the FOSS-Project-Website &amp; Enduser Awareness Game for ever - God bless them!
), they pratically invented the concept of screencasts to showcase their FOSS webkit in short understandable fashion and they abandoned all snotty-nosed elitist crap in favour of building a community for webdevs while at the same time doing huge inroads into the Java &amp; academic community who needed Ruby to boost their ego and to seperate themselves from the PHP crowd.
And who, until the rails hype, weren't aware of any FOSS webkits.
Of which Rails, btw., isn't a particuarly new, good or innovative one anyway.
Other kits from ages ago are still leading the field by far technology wise - with nobody careing.
Due to, guess what?, no marketing.Your conclusions are wrong, Mr. Shaw. People care squat about what you licence your software under.
If you want money, you demand money.
If you want attention, you demand attention.
Rails did it, you didn't.
Your Mongrel site isn't bad, by FOSS standards that is, but it doesn't look particuarly interesting either.
Learn you lesson, licence with whatever you want - wether it's the GPL or not *nobody* of *any* importance fucking cares - and do a little marketing and reasearch before you push your next FOSS tool.
That, and nothing else, will enable a business on top of it.My 2 Euros.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28696605</id>
	<title>Re:Reason 7</title>
	<author>Just Some Guy</author>
	<datestamp>1247567220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Unless the person that wants to use your code is writing a proprietary program, in which case they can't use your GPL code at all because linking it in would force them to open-source their product.</p></div><p>I have to admit a perfect lack of sympathy who want to take code freely-shared and lock it away so that no one else can use their changes to it.  Authors using the BSD license etc. explicitly allow this, and that's fine because those were the terms they chose.  Authors using the GPL explicitly do not allow this, and I'm pretty well unconcerned about people who find that inconvenient.</p><p>&gt;</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless the person that wants to use your code is writing a proprietary program , in which case they ca n't use your GPL code at all because linking it in would force them to open-source their product.I have to admit a perfect lack of sympathy who want to take code freely-shared and lock it away so that no one else can use their changes to it .
Authors using the BSD license etc .
explicitly allow this , and that 's fine because those were the terms they chose .
Authors using the GPL explicitly do not allow this , and I 'm pretty well unconcerned about people who find that inconvenient. &gt;</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless the person that wants to use your code is writing a proprietary program, in which case they can't use your GPL code at all because linking it in would force them to open-source their product.I have to admit a perfect lack of sympathy who want to take code freely-shared and lock it away so that no one else can use their changes to it.
Authors using the BSD license etc.
explicitly allow this, and that's fine because those were the terms they chose.
Authors using the GPL explicitly do not allow this, and I'm pretty well unconcerned about people who find that inconvenient.&gt;
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28694903</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28695629</id>
	<title>Difference of BSD and GPL</title>
	<author>Yogiz</author>
	<datestamp>1247563320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>BSD gives all the freedoms. GPL gives all the freedoms except for the freedom to take away freedom from others.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>BSD gives all the freedoms .
GPL gives all the freedoms except for the freedom to take away freedom from others .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BSD gives all the freedoms.
GPL gives all the freedoms except for the freedom to take away freedom from others.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691659</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28693119</id>
	<title>Who the hell is Zed?</title>
	<author>tsalmark</author>
	<datestamp>1247595060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I read the rant, I read the comments and I visited his homepage. Who the hell is Zed and why does he think I use his software?

And maybe it's just me but I often mention the supporting software and services used to create/ maintain a project, we even donate moneys through various channels to help support the OSS we use.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I read the rant , I read the comments and I visited his homepage .
Who the hell is Zed and why does he think I use his software ?
And maybe it 's just me but I often mention the supporting software and services used to create/ maintain a project , we even donate moneys through various channels to help support the OSS we use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read the rant, I read the comments and I visited his homepage.
Who the hell is Zed and why does he think I use his software?
And maybe it's just me but I often mention the supporting software and services used to create/ maintain a project, we even donate moneys through various channels to help support the OSS we use.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28697319</id>
	<title>Re:"I Dont Want To Be Ignored Again" he says.</title>
	<author>seebs</author>
	<datestamp>1247570700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It'd be neat if you provided links to these things you say are way better than Rails.  I haven't used all that many of them, but Rails has so far consistently annoyed me less than most of the environments I've had to work in.  I've done a bit of database code in several languages.  ActiveRecord was by FAR the least painful.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 'd be neat if you provided links to these things you say are way better than Rails .
I have n't used all that many of them , but Rails has so far consistently annoyed me less than most of the environments I 've had to work in .
I 've done a bit of database code in several languages .
ActiveRecord was by FAR the least painful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It'd be neat if you provided links to these things you say are way better than Rails.
I haven't used all that many of them, but Rails has so far consistently annoyed me less than most of the environments I've had to work in.
I've done a bit of database code in several languages.
ActiveRecord was by FAR the least painful.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691811</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28698141</id>
	<title>Re:"I Dont Want To Be Ignored Again" he says.</title>
	<author>zuperduperman</author>
	<datestamp>1247576100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I mostly agree with your comment.  One thing additional though:  I think Zed may well be doing precisely the *wrong* thing if he wants to not be ignored - he will probably now experience a new kind of being ignored where *nobody uses his software at all*.  This will happen because:</p><p>a)  he's now licensing it under a restrictive license where it's unclear what liability someone will be taking on by using his code.  This is poison to commercial businesses.</p><p>b)  he's portraying a public persona that shows significant problems and will probably drive anyone who would normally considering doing business with him away</p><p>So - enjoy your new GPL life Zed, but please don't expect more people to notice your software now that you've decided to be a hostile participant rather than a generous collaborator.  It's far more likely to be the other way around.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I mostly agree with your comment .
One thing additional though : I think Zed may well be doing precisely the * wrong * thing if he wants to not be ignored - he will probably now experience a new kind of being ignored where * nobody uses his software at all * .
This will happen because : a ) he 's now licensing it under a restrictive license where it 's unclear what liability someone will be taking on by using his code .
This is poison to commercial businesses.b ) he 's portraying a public persona that shows significant problems and will probably drive anyone who would normally considering doing business with him awaySo - enjoy your new GPL life Zed , but please do n't expect more people to notice your software now that you 've decided to be a hostile participant rather than a generous collaborator .
It 's far more likely to be the other way around .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mostly agree with your comment.
One thing additional though:  I think Zed may well be doing precisely the *wrong* thing if he wants to not be ignored - he will probably now experience a new kind of being ignored where *nobody uses his software at all*.
This will happen because:a)  he's now licensing it under a restrictive license where it's unclear what liability someone will be taking on by using his code.
This is poison to commercial businesses.b)  he's portraying a public persona that shows significant problems and will probably drive anyone who would normally considering doing business with him awaySo - enjoy your new GPL life Zed, but please don't expect more people to notice your software now that you've decided to be a hostile participant rather than a generous collaborator.
It's far more likely to be the other way around.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691811</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691877</id>
	<title>Re:Some good advice</title>
	<author>CRiMSON</author>
	<datestamp>1247589960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But I thought the whole point of creating software and releasing it like Mr. Zed, was simply cause then the world knows how awesome you are, and that you can finally have the huge ego stroke you know your entitled too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But I thought the whole point of creating software and releasing it like Mr. Zed , was simply cause then the world knows how awesome you are , and that you can finally have the huge ego stroke you know your entitled too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But I thought the whole point of creating software and releasing it like Mr. Zed, was simply cause then the world knows how awesome you are, and that you can finally have the huge ego stroke you know your entitled too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691331</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691175</id>
	<title>Don't know, don't care</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247586900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I never heard of any of this guy's software, I don't use it, and I don't care.  Sounds like he has an inflated sense of his own importance.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I never heard of any of this guy 's software , I do n't use it , and I do n't care .
Sounds like he has an inflated sense of his own importance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I never heard of any of this guy's software, I don't use it, and I don't care.
Sounds like he has an inflated sense of his own importance.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28692055</id>
	<title>Good</title>
	<author>12357bd</author>
	<datestamp>1247590740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good to see that developers are starting to realize that those lasts years big companies are using open sorurce but not giving back any <strong>substantial</strong> part of his owns developments.</p><p>That's why i encourage to use the AGPL v3 license for any piece of code that could be executed on a server related to internet. Starting by the Linux kernel ASAP!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good to see that developers are starting to realize that those lasts years big companies are using open sorurce but not giving back any substantial part of his owns developments.That 's why i encourage to use the AGPL v3 license for any piece of code that could be executed on a server related to internet .
Starting by the Linux kernel ASAP !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good to see that developers are starting to realize that those lasts years big companies are using open sorurce but not giving back any substantial part of his owns developments.That's why i encourage to use the AGPL v3 license for any piece of code that could be executed on a server related to internet.
Starting by the Linux kernel ASAP!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691331</id>
	<title>Some good advice</title>
	<author>RenHoek</author>
	<datestamp>1247587680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's some good advice for anybody who does anything creative, be it programming,art, writing a story, anything...</p><p>Do \_not\_ create something and then expect the masses upon which you bestow your baby to be happy.</p><p>I've seen tons of open source coders quit because their public was only complaining about features and bugs. So don't start out with such expectations. You should create something because \_you\_ want to make something. If anybody praises you afterward then count your lucky stars. But the only way how you can remain a creative person is by doing it for yourself in the first place.</p><p>I'm sure some of my code/programs are being used in the wild. And that makes me happy. I haven't gotten a lot of positive feedback, but that's ok. I'm happy because writing it made me happy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's some good advice for anybody who does anything creative , be it programming,art , writing a story , anything...Do \ _not \ _ create something and then expect the masses upon which you bestow your baby to be happy.I 've seen tons of open source coders quit because their public was only complaining about features and bugs .
So do n't start out with such expectations .
You should create something because \ _you \ _ want to make something .
If anybody praises you afterward then count your lucky stars .
But the only way how you can remain a creative person is by doing it for yourself in the first place.I 'm sure some of my code/programs are being used in the wild .
And that makes me happy .
I have n't gotten a lot of positive feedback , but that 's ok. I 'm happy because writing it made me happy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's some good advice for anybody who does anything creative, be it programming,art, writing a story, anything...Do \_not\_ create something and then expect the masses upon which you bestow your baby to be happy.I've seen tons of open source coders quit because their public was only complaining about features and bugs.
So don't start out with such expectations.
You should create something because \_you\_ want to make something.
If anybody praises you afterward then count your lucky stars.
But the only way how you can remain a creative person is by doing it for yourself in the first place.I'm sure some of my code/programs are being used in the wild.
And that makes me happy.
I haven't gotten a lot of positive feedback, but that's ok. I'm happy because writing it made me happy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28694697</id>
	<title>Re:Not really for that</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247601900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uh oh, you just made the heretical claim that GPL restricts coders. Quickly, duck before less-insightful people throw things at you!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uh oh , you just made the heretical claim that GPL restricts coders .
Quickly , duck before less-insightful people throw things at you !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uh oh, you just made the heretical claim that GPL restricts coders.
Quickly, duck before less-insightful people throw things at you!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691659</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28694627</id>
	<title>Re:If your code...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247601540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Editors.  When you see something so blatant, please use [sic] after it so people will know it's not you doing <b>the mangling the English language.</b></p> </div><p>[sic]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Editors .
When you see something so blatant , please use [ sic ] after it so people will know it 's not you doing the mangling the English language .
[ sic ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Editors.
When you see something so blatant, please use [sic] after it so people will know it's not you doing the mangling the English language.
[sic]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691519</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28722119</id>
	<title>Re:Because I want to...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247736180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>exactly.</p><p>What irks many BSD people is that you can take BSD code and add/re-license it under the GPL and new contriubtions to the GPL forked version can't come back to the BSD code base (if I understand it correctly).</p><p>Well...too bad. The BSD license allows this. When your license says "Do what you want with this software so long as this copyright license with no requirements other than this text remains in the code)" what have you to complain about? It may be BAD FORM and morally Evil from your standpoint for somebody to take your code and add licensing restrictions but then again did you understand the consequences of choosing the BSD license?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>exactly.What irks many BSD people is that you can take BSD code and add/re-license it under the GPL and new contriubtions to the GPL forked version ca n't come back to the BSD code base ( if I understand it correctly ) .Well...too bad .
The BSD license allows this .
When your license says " Do what you want with this software so long as this copyright license with no requirements other than this text remains in the code ) " what have you to complain about ?
It may be BAD FORM and morally Evil from your standpoint for somebody to take your code and add licensing restrictions but then again did you understand the consequences of choosing the BSD license ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>exactly.What irks many BSD people is that you can take BSD code and add/re-license it under the GPL and new contriubtions to the GPL forked version can't come back to the BSD code base (if I understand it correctly).Well...too bad.
The BSD license allows this.
When your license says "Do what you want with this software so long as this copyright license with no requirements other than this text remains in the code)" what have you to complain about?
It may be BAD FORM and morally Evil from your standpoint for somebody to take your code and add licensing restrictions but then again did you understand the consequences of choosing the BSD license?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691825</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691433</id>
	<title>Compromise?</title>
	<author>ashtophoenix</author>
	<datestamp>1247588040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is your choice. Be larger than life or become mediocre. Greatness is NOT easy. That is why we don't have many great people. It isn't even within everyone's reach in their lifetimes. It is perfectly fine to not be great. At least you yearned for it. But if you want to be considered larger than life, life will ask of you a sacrifice.<br> <br>
It is your choice...It takes a certain kind of person to, for example, write open source for either the simple pleasure of writing it or for the simple pleasure of making things better. Not all of us are that person, and that's okay.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is your choice .
Be larger than life or become mediocre .
Greatness is NOT easy .
That is why we do n't have many great people .
It is n't even within everyone 's reach in their lifetimes .
It is perfectly fine to not be great .
At least you yearned for it .
But if you want to be considered larger than life , life will ask of you a sacrifice .
It is your choice...It takes a certain kind of person to , for example , write open source for either the simple pleasure of writing it or for the simple pleasure of making things better .
Not all of us are that person , and that 's okay .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is your choice.
Be larger than life or become mediocre.
Greatness is NOT easy.
That is why we don't have many great people.
It isn't even within everyone's reach in their lifetimes.
It is perfectly fine to not be great.
At least you yearned for it.
But if you want to be considered larger than life, life will ask of you a sacrifice.
It is your choice...It takes a certain kind of person to, for example, write open source for either the simple pleasure of writing it or for the simple pleasure of making things better.
Not all of us are that person, and that's okay.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28694681</id>
	<title>Re:One reason for not using GPL</title>
	<author>bryonak</author>
	<datestamp>1247601780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Feeding the troll...</p><p>Just a small addition to what the commenters above me have said:</p><p>If the BSD license implies more contributions from companies, how do you explain the current state of the BSD projects compared to GPL projects?</p><p>FreeBSD gets a few contributions from Apple, GPL'd stuff is constantly improved by IBM, Intel, Oracle, etc and even by Apple!.<br>There are probably more companies that incorporate BSD'd stuff into their own code than GPL'd... and don't contribute back. But that's the point of the GPL.</p><p>Do you really think all of FreeBSD get's more corporate contributions than just even the Linux kernel?<br>Take a look around... BSDL'ing your code gives you way less contributions (both corporate and non-corporate) than releasing under the GPL.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Feeding the troll...Just a small addition to what the commenters above me have said : If the BSD license implies more contributions from companies , how do you explain the current state of the BSD projects compared to GPL projects ? FreeBSD gets a few contributions from Apple , GPL 'd stuff is constantly improved by IBM , Intel , Oracle , etc and even by Apple ! .There are probably more companies that incorporate BSD 'd stuff into their own code than GPL 'd... and do n't contribute back .
But that 's the point of the GPL.Do you really think all of FreeBSD get 's more corporate contributions than just even the Linux kernel ? Take a look around... BSDL'ing your code gives you way less contributions ( both corporate and non-corporate ) than releasing under the GPL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Feeding the troll...Just a small addition to what the commenters above me have said:If the BSD license implies more contributions from companies, how do you explain the current state of the BSD projects compared to GPL projects?FreeBSD gets a few contributions from Apple, GPL'd stuff is constantly improved by IBM, Intel, Oracle, etc and even by Apple!.There are probably more companies that incorporate BSD'd stuff into their own code than GPL'd... and don't contribute back.
But that's the point of the GPL.Do you really think all of FreeBSD get's more corporate contributions than just even the Linux kernel?Take a look around... BSDL'ing your code gives you way less contributions (both corporate and non-corporate) than releasing under the GPL.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28693583</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28699829</id>
	<title>Re:agreed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247590080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or perhaps they are willing to let others use the code commercially because then it gets used by more professional programmers who prefer to contribute back to the project rather than maintain it themselves.</p><p>My relatively small company has used code from several bsd/mit licensed projects.  We are a highly test oriented company so it is a near certainty that we find bugs in every third party package we use.  We maintain thirdparty repositories locally for our own fixes.  We have no interest in porting every bug fix every time we rev the third party library so we submit them back to the authors.</p><p>Thus, in exchange for using a more open license, these projects get 10s of thousands of hours of automated testing and collectively hundreds of hours of developer hours of work submitted back to their projects.</p><p>I'm sure we aren't the only company that does this.</p><p>Because of the viral nature of the GPL, no company will let that mix with anything they distribute.  So it'll tend to be used in house and unmodified or not at all.  It'll never get run in the automated test suites and will rarely get any developer time (since they can work around bugs in house).</p><p>Without a sponsoring company, no GPL software gets the polish that a more open license does.</p><p>Furthermore, passing off someone else's code as your own is against the law no matter what license it was under.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or perhaps they are willing to let others use the code commercially because then it gets used by more professional programmers who prefer to contribute back to the project rather than maintain it themselves.My relatively small company has used code from several bsd/mit licensed projects .
We are a highly test oriented company so it is a near certainty that we find bugs in every third party package we use .
We maintain thirdparty repositories locally for our own fixes .
We have no interest in porting every bug fix every time we rev the third party library so we submit them back to the authors.Thus , in exchange for using a more open license , these projects get 10s of thousands of hours of automated testing and collectively hundreds of hours of developer hours of work submitted back to their projects.I 'm sure we are n't the only company that does this.Because of the viral nature of the GPL , no company will let that mix with anything they distribute .
So it 'll tend to be used in house and unmodified or not at all .
It 'll never get run in the automated test suites and will rarely get any developer time ( since they can work around bugs in house ) .Without a sponsoring company , no GPL software gets the polish that a more open license does.Furthermore , passing off someone else 's code as your own is against the law no matter what license it was under .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or perhaps they are willing to let others use the code commercially because then it gets used by more professional programmers who prefer to contribute back to the project rather than maintain it themselves.My relatively small company has used code from several bsd/mit licensed projects.
We are a highly test oriented company so it is a near certainty that we find bugs in every third party package we use.
We maintain thirdparty repositories locally for our own fixes.
We have no interest in porting every bug fix every time we rev the third party library so we submit them back to the authors.Thus, in exchange for using a more open license, these projects get 10s of thousands of hours of automated testing and collectively hundreds of hours of developer hours of work submitted back to their projects.I'm sure we aren't the only company that does this.Because of the viral nature of the GPL, no company will let that mix with anything they distribute.
So it'll tend to be used in house and unmodified or not at all.
It'll never get run in the automated test suites and will rarely get any developer time (since they can work around bugs in house).Without a sponsoring company, no GPL software gets the polish that a more open license does.Furthermore, passing off someone else's code as your own is against the law no matter what license it was under.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691035</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28690903</id>
	<title>Get a job, you hippie!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247585700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nothing more to say.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nothing more to say .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nothing more to say.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28692513</id>
	<title>It doesn't have to be in the binary</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247592660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just in the source code. As a comment, even.</p><p>So how can you tell whose code it is if you don't get the source with the binary?</p><p>You can't.</p><p>So you can't properly attribute the good work to the right people. Just to the one who gave you the binary.</p><p>And this is different from "stealing" the code how?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just in the source code .
As a comment , even.So how can you tell whose code it is if you do n't get the source with the binary ? You ca n't.So you ca n't properly attribute the good work to the right people .
Just to the one who gave you the binary.And this is different from " stealing " the code how ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just in the source code.
As a comment, even.So how can you tell whose code it is if you don't get the source with the binary?You can't.So you can't properly attribute the good work to the right people.
Just to the one who gave you the binary.And this is different from "stealing" the code how?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691205</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28696795</id>
	<title>Re:Not really for that</title>
	<author>caseih</author>
	<datestamp>1247568300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Almost.  The GPL protects the freedoms of the users of \_code\_ down the line.  It actually has nothing to say about users themselves.  Basically it says, "you do not have to agree with this licences to use the product, only if you distribute the product".  As a developer, I feel that the GPL protects me.  It protects me from companies competing against me with my own products.  It likewise protects all the developers who would derive code from my code (or any GPL code).</p><p>Sadly his rant almost kills the effects of his arguments, though.  I think if these six points were written up in a more professional-sounding way, you'd get many more level-headed developers nodding in agreement, rather than knee-jerk reactions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Almost .
The GPL protects the freedoms of the users of \ _code \ _ down the line .
It actually has nothing to say about users themselves .
Basically it says , " you do not have to agree with this licences to use the product , only if you distribute the product " .
As a developer , I feel that the GPL protects me .
It protects me from companies competing against me with my own products .
It likewise protects all the developers who would derive code from my code ( or any GPL code ) .Sadly his rant almost kills the effects of his arguments , though .
I think if these six points were written up in a more professional-sounding way , you 'd get many more level-headed developers nodding in agreement , rather than knee-jerk reactions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Almost.
The GPL protects the freedoms of the users of \_code\_ down the line.
It actually has nothing to say about users themselves.
Basically it says, "you do not have to agree with this licences to use the product, only if you distribute the product".
As a developer, I feel that the GPL protects me.
It protects me from companies competing against me with my own products.
It likewise protects all the developers who would derive code from my code (or any GPL code).Sadly his rant almost kills the effects of his arguments, though.
I think if these six points were written up in a more professional-sounding way, you'd get many more level-headed developers nodding in agreement, rather than knee-jerk reactions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691659</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28692029</id>
	<title>Zed may not be GPL compatible</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247590620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Zed's not really talking about the GPL.  The GPL is less encumbered than the license he's effectively trying to enforce.  Zed's license should be called the "free to use except you have to listen to me whine and dump on you and give you a guilt trip".</p><p>In other words, the GPL is probably the right license for most of us to keep *using* and the wrong license for Zed to release under.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Zed 's not really talking about the GPL .
The GPL is less encumbered than the license he 's effectively trying to enforce .
Zed 's license should be called the " free to use except you have to listen to me whine and dump on you and give you a guilt trip " .In other words , the GPL is probably the right license for most of us to keep * using * and the wrong license for Zed to release under .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Zed's not really talking about the GPL.
The GPL is less encumbered than the license he's effectively trying to enforce.
Zed's license should be called the "free to use except you have to listen to me whine and dump on you and give you a guilt trip".In other words, the GPL is probably the right license for most of us to keep *using* and the wrong license for Zed to release under.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28692071</id>
	<title>Re:Awww, What Happened to Badass Zed?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247590800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>How many of you out there go to management and say, 'Hey, you know there's this guy Zed who wrote the software I'm using, why don't we hire him as a consultant?' You don't. None of you. You take the software, and use it like Excalibur to slay your dragon and then take the credit for it. You don't give out any credit, and in fact, I've ran into a vast majority of you who constantly try to say that I can't code as a way of covering your ass."</p></div></blockquote><p>Boss: Who's stuff is this?<br>You: It's code, baby.<br>Boss: Who's code is this?<br>You: Zed's.<br>Boss: Who's Zed?<br>You: Zed's dead, baby. Zed's dead.</p><p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7Yp2L6c2KM" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">(Ref.)</a> [youtube.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How many of you out there go to management and say , 'Hey , you know there 's this guy Zed who wrote the software I 'm using , why do n't we hire him as a consultant ?
' You do n't .
None of you .
You take the software , and use it like Excalibur to slay your dragon and then take the credit for it .
You do n't give out any credit , and in fact , I 've ran into a vast majority of you who constantly try to say that I ca n't code as a way of covering your ass .
" Boss : Who 's stuff is this ? You : It 's code , baby.Boss : Who 's code is this ? You : Zed 's.Boss : Who 's Zed ? You : Zed 's dead , baby .
Zed 's dead. ( Ref .
) [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How many of you out there go to management and say, 'Hey, you know there's this guy Zed who wrote the software I'm using, why don't we hire him as a consultant?
' You don't.
None of you.
You take the software, and use it like Excalibur to slay your dragon and then take the credit for it.
You don't give out any credit, and in fact, I've ran into a vast majority of you who constantly try to say that I can't code as a way of covering your ass.
"Boss: Who's stuff is this?You: It's code, baby.Boss: Who's code is this?You: Zed's.Boss: Who's Zed?You: Zed's dead, baby.
Zed's dead.(Ref.
) [youtube.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691021</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28694161</id>
	<title>Re:Awww, What Happened to Badass Zed?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247599320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You don't give out any credit,</p> </div><p>The GPL does not require attribution.  In fact, it is incompatible with licenses that do require attribution.</p><p>Yet another case of some whiner who doesn't understand the license that he is whining about.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't give out any credit , The GPL does not require attribution .
In fact , it is incompatible with licenses that do require attribution.Yet another case of some whiner who does n't understand the license that he is whining about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't give out any credit, The GPL does not require attribution.
In fact, it is incompatible with licenses that do require attribution.Yet another case of some whiner who doesn't understand the license that he is whining about.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28690911</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28705639</id>
	<title>Re:Some good advice</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247683020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm sure some of my code/programs are being used in the wild. And that makes me happy. I haven't gotten a lot of positive feedback, but that's ok. I'm happy because writing it made me happy.</p></div><p>Personally I know of a lot of developers I'd like to say Thank You to (I've also donated money), but I'm afraid of wasting their time, thinking they already have enough uninteresting messages in their inboxes.
<br> <br>
Am I wrong?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure some of my code/programs are being used in the wild .
And that makes me happy .
I have n't gotten a lot of positive feedback , but that 's ok. I 'm happy because writing it made me happy.Personally I know of a lot of developers I 'd like to say Thank You to ( I 've also donated money ) , but I 'm afraid of wasting their time , thinking they already have enough uninteresting messages in their inboxes .
Am I wrong ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure some of my code/programs are being used in the wild.
And that makes me happy.
I haven't gotten a lot of positive feedback, but that's ok. I'm happy because writing it made me happy.Personally I know of a lot of developers I'd like to say Thank You to (I've also donated money), but I'm afraid of wasting their time, thinking they already have enough uninteresting messages in their inboxes.
Am I wrong?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691331</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28697261</id>
	<title>Re:One reason for not using GPL</title>
	<author>ChaosDiscord</author>
	<datestamp>1247570340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Would Apple be using, and contributing to, FreeBSD if it was GPL'ed, for instance..?</p></div></blockquote><p>Yes, can you imagine the madness of Apple shipping GPLed software?  <a href="http://developer.apple.com/ReleaseNotes/DeveloperTools/RN-GCC4/index.html" title="apple.com">The thought of Apple shipping GPLed software like GCC is laughable</a> [apple.com]?  Or <a href="http://www.cups.org/" title="cups.org">developing a printing system</a> [cups.org] and <a href="http://www.cups.org/documentation.php/license.html" title="cups.org">licensing it under the GPL</a> [cups.org].  I think not.  <a href="http://devworld.apple.com/opensource/tools/xcodetools2.2.html" title="apple.com">An entire suite of GPLed software?</a> [apple.com]  Never!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Would Apple be using , and contributing to , FreeBSD if it was GPL'ed , for instance.. ? Yes , can you imagine the madness of Apple shipping GPLed software ?
The thought of Apple shipping GPLed software like GCC is laughable [ apple.com ] ?
Or developing a printing system [ cups.org ] and licensing it under the GPL [ cups.org ] .
I think not .
An entire suite of GPLed software ?
[ apple.com ] Never !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would Apple be using, and contributing to, FreeBSD if it was GPL'ed, for instance..?Yes, can you imagine the madness of Apple shipping GPLed software?
The thought of Apple shipping GPLed software like GCC is laughable [apple.com]?
Or developing a printing system [cups.org] and licensing it under the GPL [cups.org].
I think not.
An entire suite of GPLed software?
[apple.com]  Never!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28693583</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691659</id>
	<title>Re:Not really for that</title>
	<author>Enleth</author>
	<datestamp>1247589120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I guess I have some 30 seconds now before heavy airborne objects thrown by the GPL and BSD advocates bring this thread into a total mayhem, but I'll try to make an unorthodox argument there, anyway.</p><p>IMHO, both GPL-like and BSD-like licenses protect the freedom equally. The question is, whose freedom it is. Roughly speaking, GPL protects the freedoms of users by restricting the coders, while BSD protects the freedom of the coders, which might result in restricting the rights of the users. Which is more important, that's a whole new problem, but it's not about one license being "better" than the other.</p><p>Another, no less interesting way of looking at the problem is asking who do we exactly mean by the "users" of the code - the people "using" the resulting binary, or the people taking the code and "using" it to create new code? Or maybe both? This question alone puts the issue in a new light, and it's not an obvious one.</p><p>Many times I've seen people fighting over the GPL/BSD issue here and not ever once they agreed beforehand what do they mean by "users", "freedom", "better", etc. - heavy object throwing took over.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess I have some 30 seconds now before heavy airborne objects thrown by the GPL and BSD advocates bring this thread into a total mayhem , but I 'll try to make an unorthodox argument there , anyway.IMHO , both GPL-like and BSD-like licenses protect the freedom equally .
The question is , whose freedom it is .
Roughly speaking , GPL protects the freedoms of users by restricting the coders , while BSD protects the freedom of the coders , which might result in restricting the rights of the users .
Which is more important , that 's a whole new problem , but it 's not about one license being " better " than the other.Another , no less interesting way of looking at the problem is asking who do we exactly mean by the " users " of the code - the people " using " the resulting binary , or the people taking the code and " using " it to create new code ?
Or maybe both ?
This question alone puts the issue in a new light , and it 's not an obvious one.Many times I 've seen people fighting over the GPL/BSD issue here and not ever once they agreed beforehand what do they mean by " users " , " freedom " , " better " , etc .
- heavy object throwing took over .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess I have some 30 seconds now before heavy airborne objects thrown by the GPL and BSD advocates bring this thread into a total mayhem, but I'll try to make an unorthodox argument there, anyway.IMHO, both GPL-like and BSD-like licenses protect the freedom equally.
The question is, whose freedom it is.
Roughly speaking, GPL protects the freedoms of users by restricting the coders, while BSD protects the freedom of the coders, which might result in restricting the rights of the users.
Which is more important, that's a whole new problem, but it's not about one license being "better" than the other.Another, no less interesting way of looking at the problem is asking who do we exactly mean by the "users" of the code - the people "using" the resulting binary, or the people taking the code and "using" it to create new code?
Or maybe both?
This question alone puts the issue in a new light, and it's not an obvious one.Many times I've seen people fighting over the GPL/BSD issue here and not ever once they agreed beforehand what do they mean by "users", "freedom", "better", etc.
- heavy object throwing took over.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28690997</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28692785</id>
	<title>Yawn.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247593800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"You don't. None of you. You take the software, and use it like Excalibur to slay your dragon and then take the credit for it. You don't give out any credit, and in fact"</p><p>Yes, you're right, that's because we don't really care.</p><p>What, you mean you thought if you put some software on the net using a license that requires no obligation for someone who simply wants to use it to repay you at all that people wouldn't do just that - use it without repaying you?</p><p>I suppose FOSS, but this is stupid, you cannot possibly use a license like GPL if your expectance is to be repaid, that's what commercial open source licenses are for or simply what contract work licenses are for. Would it be nice if you could? Sure, but human nature is not, has not, and never will be that way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" You do n't .
None of you .
You take the software , and use it like Excalibur to slay your dragon and then take the credit for it .
You do n't give out any credit , and in fact " Yes , you 're right , that 's because we do n't really care.What , you mean you thought if you put some software on the net using a license that requires no obligation for someone who simply wants to use it to repay you at all that people would n't do just that - use it without repaying you ? I suppose FOSS , but this is stupid , you can not possibly use a license like GPL if your expectance is to be repaid , that 's what commercial open source licenses are for or simply what contract work licenses are for .
Would it be nice if you could ?
Sure , but human nature is not , has not , and never will be that way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"You don't.
None of you.
You take the software, and use it like Excalibur to slay your dragon and then take the credit for it.
You don't give out any credit, and in fact"Yes, you're right, that's because we don't really care.What, you mean you thought if you put some software on the net using a license that requires no obligation for someone who simply wants to use it to repay you at all that people wouldn't do just that - use it without repaying you?I suppose FOSS, but this is stupid, you cannot possibly use a license like GPL if your expectance is to be repaid, that's what commercial open source licenses are for or simply what contract work licenses are for.
Would it be nice if you could?
Sure, but human nature is not, has not, and never will be that way.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691631</id>
	<title>Re:agreed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247588940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The BSD, MIT licenses (even if more open) are for mugs who end up having their code "stolen" !</p></div><p>You claim this but the BSDs get countless contributions back from people and corporations that use their code.  This is just GPL FUD.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The BSD , MIT licenses ( even if more open ) are for mugs who end up having their code " stolen " ! You claim this but the BSDs get countless contributions back from people and corporations that use their code .
This is just GPL FUD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The BSD, MIT licenses (even if more open) are for mugs who end up having their code "stolen" !You claim this but the BSDs get countless contributions back from people and corporations that use their code.
This is just GPL FUD.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691035</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28696143</id>
	<title>Re:Why GPL if you want to make money?</title>
	<author>Millennium</author>
	<datestamp>1247565300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A person wants to use the GPL because they want to get paid?  Where does the GPL say the programmer has to be paid.  I may be wrong but I don't recall anything like that in the license.</p></div><p>The GPL doesn't say that. What's in the GPL is that if you aren't willing to contribute back your changes, then the GPL license doesn't apply to you, and therefore if you still want to use the software, you need another license. When you go back to the developer (Zed in this case) for a different license, that lets you lock up the code, the developer charges for it. <i>That</i> is what says the programmer has to be paid; either you get the software under the GPL for free and obey the GPL, or you get the software under another license for money and obey that license.</p><p>This is the trick: you still need a license to use GPL software. It's just that instead of paying for the license with money, you pay with code: namely, your changes. If you have no applicable code (i.e. you haven't made any changes or derivatives), then the license lets that slide and you can use it for free as long as you still have no code. But once you have code, you have to pay.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A person wants to use the GPL because they want to get paid ?
Where does the GPL say the programmer has to be paid .
I may be wrong but I do n't recall anything like that in the license.The GPL does n't say that .
What 's in the GPL is that if you are n't willing to contribute back your changes , then the GPL license does n't apply to you , and therefore if you still want to use the software , you need another license .
When you go back to the developer ( Zed in this case ) for a different license , that lets you lock up the code , the developer charges for it .
That is what says the programmer has to be paid ; either you get the software under the GPL for free and obey the GPL , or you get the software under another license for money and obey that license.This is the trick : you still need a license to use GPL software .
It 's just that instead of paying for the license with money , you pay with code : namely , your changes .
If you have no applicable code ( i.e .
you have n't made any changes or derivatives ) , then the license lets that slide and you can use it for free as long as you still have no code .
But once you have code , you have to pay .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A person wants to use the GPL because they want to get paid?
Where does the GPL say the programmer has to be paid.
I may be wrong but I don't recall anything like that in the license.The GPL doesn't say that.
What's in the GPL is that if you aren't willing to contribute back your changes, then the GPL license doesn't apply to you, and therefore if you still want to use the software, you need another license.
When you go back to the developer (Zed in this case) for a different license, that lets you lock up the code, the developer charges for it.
That is what says the programmer has to be paid; either you get the software under the GPL for free and obey the GPL, or you get the software under another license for money and obey that license.This is the trick: you still need a license to use GPL software.
It's just that instead of paying for the license with money, you pay with code: namely, your changes.
If you have no applicable code (i.e.
you haven't made any changes or derivatives), then the license lets that slide and you can use it for free as long as you still have no code.
But once you have code, you have to pay.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28694829</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28700701</id>
	<title>Re:Not really for that</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1247600160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What, you're saying there's an inherent tradeoff between giving developers full freedom and ensuring end-user freedom?!? But seriously, one other distinction is that the GPL relies on copyright law, while BSD-style licenses are basically what all code would be under were there no copyright (put another way, BSD-style is basically equivalent to public domain).</htmltext>
<tokenext>What , you 're saying there 's an inherent tradeoff between giving developers full freedom and ensuring end-user freedom ? ! ?
But seriously , one other distinction is that the GPL relies on copyright law , while BSD-style licenses are basically what all code would be under were there no copyright ( put another way , BSD-style is basically equivalent to public domain ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What, you're saying there's an inherent tradeoff between giving developers full freedom and ensuring end-user freedom?!?
But seriously, one other distinction is that the GPL relies on copyright law, while BSD-style licenses are basically what all code would be under were there no copyright (put another way, BSD-style is basically equivalent to public domain).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691659</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28693583</id>
	<title>One reason for not using GPL</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247596860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If your library is GPL-licensed, you're barring people from using it; from finding bugs and contributing patches. What open source is all about imho.</p><p>Over the last two years, I've contributed to three different open source projects on my employers time. Granted, just small stuff, but improvements none the less. Had these projects been GPL-licensed, we'd never consider them. I'm sure my company is by no means unique. Would Apple be using, and contributing to, FreeBSD if it was GPL'ed, for instance..?</p><p>In the end, open is always more competetive, and BSD/MIT/Apache/LGPL/+++ are more open than GPL. It's as simple as that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If your library is GPL-licensed , you 're barring people from using it ; from finding bugs and contributing patches .
What open source is all about imho.Over the last two years , I 've contributed to three different open source projects on my employers time .
Granted , just small stuff , but improvements none the less .
Had these projects been GPL-licensed , we 'd never consider them .
I 'm sure my company is by no means unique .
Would Apple be using , and contributing to , FreeBSD if it was GPL'ed , for instance.. ? In the end , open is always more competetive , and BSD/MIT/Apache/LGPL/ + + + are more open than GPL .
It 's as simple as that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If your library is GPL-licensed, you're barring people from using it; from finding bugs and contributing patches.
What open source is all about imho.Over the last two years, I've contributed to three different open source projects on my employers time.
Granted, just small stuff, but improvements none the less.
Had these projects been GPL-licensed, we'd never consider them.
I'm sure my company is by no means unique.
Would Apple be using, and contributing to, FreeBSD if it was GPL'ed, for instance..?In the end, open is always more competetive, and BSD/MIT/Apache/LGPL/+++ are more open than GPL.
It's as simple as that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28695987</id>
	<title>Re:This seems to be a fairly common problem</title>
	<author>Dastardly</author>
	<datestamp>1247564700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What about gods who think they are tech types?</p><p>"When some one asks if you are a god you say, YES!" - Winston</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What about gods who think they are tech types ?
" When some one asks if you are a god you say , YES !
" - Winston</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about gods who think they are tech types?
"When some one asks if you are a god you say, YES!
" - Winston</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28692037</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28690899</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247585700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Frost byte</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Frost byte</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Frost byte</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28693969</id>
	<title>Re:One reason for not using GPL</title>
	<author>viralMeme</author>
	<datestamp>1247598540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If your library is GPL-licensed, you're barring people from using it; from finding bugs and contributing patches. What open source is all about imho.

Over the last two years, I've contributed to three different open source projects on my employers time</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Please explain how the GPL prevents people from using your library. What open source projects have you contributed to?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If your library is GPL-licensed , you 're barring people from using it ; from finding bugs and contributing patches .
What open source is all about imho .
Over the last two years , I 've contributed to three different open source projects on my employers time Please explain how the GPL prevents people from using your library .
What open source projects have you contributed to ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If your library is GPL-licensed, you're barring people from using it; from finding bugs and contributing patches.
What open source is all about imho.
Over the last two years, I've contributed to three different open source projects on my employers time

Please explain how the GPL prevents people from using your library.
What open source projects have you contributed to?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28693583</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28699553</id>
	<title>Re:Awww, What Happened to Badass Zed?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247587500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree with almost everything Mr. Shaw says about GPL, but after reading the new version of the "Rails is a Ghetto" page I'm almost ashamed of agreeing with him on something. Thank you for pointing out this glib retraction, I wasn't aware of it. Not only does he think he can obliterate something he published on the Internet, he chose to pretend he didn't mean it and he was just fucking with the stupid masses of worshippers. Now my conclusion is that he's a liar, and a coward, and too much of a macho to stand by his own words or apologize for them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with almost everything Mr. Shaw says about GPL , but after reading the new version of the " Rails is a Ghetto " page I 'm almost ashamed of agreeing with him on something .
Thank you for pointing out this glib retraction , I was n't aware of it .
Not only does he think he can obliterate something he published on the Internet , he chose to pretend he did n't mean it and he was just fucking with the stupid masses of worshippers .
Now my conclusion is that he 's a liar , and a coward , and too much of a macho to stand by his own words or apologize for them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with almost everything Mr. Shaw says about GPL, but after reading the new version of the "Rails is a Ghetto" page I'm almost ashamed of agreeing with him on something.
Thank you for pointing out this glib retraction, I wasn't aware of it.
Not only does he think he can obliterate something he published on the Internet, he chose to pretend he didn't mean it and he was just fucking with the stupid masses of worshippers.
Now my conclusion is that he's a liar, and a coward, and too much of a macho to stand by his own words or apologize for them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28690911</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28694517</id>
	<title>Re:I do!</title>
	<author>ClosedSource</author>
	<datestamp>1247601060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't that the hip-hop moto? I just love it when rap is added to a great song from my youth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't that the hip-hop moto ?
I just love it when rap is added to a great song from my youth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't that the hip-hop moto?
I just love it when rap is added to a great song from my youth.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691073</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691071</id>
	<title>Re:Awww, What Happened to Badass Zed?</title>
	<author>Antidamage</author>
	<datestamp>1247586360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh my god, this is THAT loser?</p><p>Zed Shaw convinced me I never wanted anything to do with open source development. That very rant you just linked helped me decide it was better to use what was available then fuck off leaving open source in the dust. I concluded if you don't have complete, absolute control over your project then the Zed Shaws of the world are going to take all of your successes and mar them with whiny drama antics.</p><p>Slashdot does itself a great disservice publishing this sort of story. I suppose we shouldn't be surprised. Sometimes, no matter how bad you think a whiner is, he has supporters who want to keep hearing him whine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh my god , this is THAT loser ? Zed Shaw convinced me I never wanted anything to do with open source development .
That very rant you just linked helped me decide it was better to use what was available then fuck off leaving open source in the dust .
I concluded if you do n't have complete , absolute control over your project then the Zed Shaws of the world are going to take all of your successes and mar them with whiny drama antics.Slashdot does itself a great disservice publishing this sort of story .
I suppose we should n't be surprised .
Sometimes , no matter how bad you think a whiner is , he has supporters who want to keep hearing him whine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh my god, this is THAT loser?Zed Shaw convinced me I never wanted anything to do with open source development.
That very rant you just linked helped me decide it was better to use what was available then fuck off leaving open source in the dust.
I concluded if you don't have complete, absolute control over your project then the Zed Shaws of the world are going to take all of your successes and mar them with whiny drama antics.Slashdot does itself a great disservice publishing this sort of story.
I suppose we shouldn't be surprised.
Sometimes, no matter how bad you think a whiner is, he has supporters who want to keep hearing him whine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28690911</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28695717</id>
	<title>Re:Sponsorship decals?</title>
	<author>jeremyp</author>
	<datestamp>1247563680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That depends.  Normally you'd pay the socket manufacturer money to take the sockets off his hands.  On the other hand, the socket manufacturer may choose to let you have the sockets for free in exchange for advertising.</p><p>If you want to use my software in your product, you can pay me for it or you can abide by the terms of whatever open source licence I choose to distribute it under.  If that licence says you have to give me credit, is that too much too ask considering you are probably getting hundreds of hours of labour for no money?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That depends .
Normally you 'd pay the socket manufacturer money to take the sockets off his hands .
On the other hand , the socket manufacturer may choose to let you have the sockets for free in exchange for advertising.If you want to use my software in your product , you can pay me for it or you can abide by the terms of whatever open source licence I choose to distribute it under .
If that licence says you have to give me credit , is that too much too ask considering you are probably getting hundreds of hours of labour for no money ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That depends.
Normally you'd pay the socket manufacturer money to take the sockets off his hands.
On the other hand, the socket manufacturer may choose to let you have the sockets for free in exchange for advertising.If you want to use my software in your product, you can pay me for it or you can abide by the terms of whatever open source licence I choose to distribute it under.
If that licence says you have to give me credit, is that too much too ask considering you are probably getting hundreds of hours of labour for no money?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691647</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28692975</id>
	<title>Re:Awww, What Happened to Badass Zed?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247594520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>What happened to you, man? You used to be cool! Where's all the in your face swearing and abrasiveness? You used to be hardcore!</i></p><p>So, you say this now.  But I read your post that you "quoted the best part" from Zed's previous rant.  You concluded:</p><blockquote><div><p>I hate to say this but after reading this first part of the rant, I think Zed is just as big (if not half) of the problem of the community being in shambles as any of his targets are.</p></div></blockquote><p>In short, you criticized him big-time for his abusive ranting.  Now, he has toned the rhetoric way the frak down, and you are criticizing him for not being as entertaining?</p><p>And then you finish up with this gem:</p><p><i>You, are a great software developer. Much better than I in all probability. You are a complete and utter asshole in nearly every other respect (yes, even in your music) and it should come as no surprise that you cannot land a job on a team. I would not pay money for your projects since I don't use them but I will send you $20 to stay in a hole, write software and restrict yourself from communicating with the outside world. Really, the world would be a better place.</i></p><p>So now you are criticizing him just as much as before.  So my takeaway from this is that you think he's a big jerk, only less entertaining than he used to be?</p><p>What do you know about Zed anyway?  All I know of him is his rants.  If I were considering hiring him, I'd talk to people he worked with previously; that's what counts.  Maybe he rants on his blog, but when you work with him he's nice.  I don't know either way; I'm just saying, don't be too quick to judge someone from a few rants.</p><p>steveha</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What happened to you , man ?
You used to be cool !
Where 's all the in your face swearing and abrasiveness ?
You used to be hardcore ! So , you say this now .
But I read your post that you " quoted the best part " from Zed 's previous rant .
You concluded : I hate to say this but after reading this first part of the rant , I think Zed is just as big ( if not half ) of the problem of the community being in shambles as any of his targets are.In short , you criticized him big-time for his abusive ranting .
Now , he has toned the rhetoric way the frak down , and you are criticizing him for not being as entertaining ? And then you finish up with this gem : You , are a great software developer .
Much better than I in all probability .
You are a complete and utter asshole in nearly every other respect ( yes , even in your music ) and it should come as no surprise that you can not land a job on a team .
I would not pay money for your projects since I do n't use them but I will send you $ 20 to stay in a hole , write software and restrict yourself from communicating with the outside world .
Really , the world would be a better place.So now you are criticizing him just as much as before .
So my takeaway from this is that you think he 's a big jerk , only less entertaining than he used to be ? What do you know about Zed anyway ?
All I know of him is his rants .
If I were considering hiring him , I 'd talk to people he worked with previously ; that 's what counts .
Maybe he rants on his blog , but when you work with him he 's nice .
I do n't know either way ; I 'm just saying , do n't be too quick to judge someone from a few rants.steveha</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What happened to you, man?
You used to be cool!
Where's all the in your face swearing and abrasiveness?
You used to be hardcore!So, you say this now.
But I read your post that you "quoted the best part" from Zed's previous rant.
You concluded:I hate to say this but after reading this first part of the rant, I think Zed is just as big (if not half) of the problem of the community being in shambles as any of his targets are.In short, you criticized him big-time for his abusive ranting.
Now, he has toned the rhetoric way the frak down, and you are criticizing him for not being as entertaining?And then you finish up with this gem:You, are a great software developer.
Much better than I in all probability.
You are a complete and utter asshole in nearly every other respect (yes, even in your music) and it should come as no surprise that you cannot land a job on a team.
I would not pay money for your projects since I don't use them but I will send you $20 to stay in a hole, write software and restrict yourself from communicating with the outside world.
Really, the world would be a better place.So now you are criticizing him just as much as before.
So my takeaway from this is that you think he's a big jerk, only less entertaining than he used to be?What do you know about Zed anyway?
All I know of him is his rants.
If I were considering hiring him, I'd talk to people he worked with previously; that's what counts.
Maybe he rants on his blog, but when you work with him he's nice.
I don't know either way; I'm just saying, don't be too quick to judge someone from a few rants.steveha
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28690911</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28693201</id>
	<title>Zed's Haiku</title>
	<author>chord.wav</author>
	<datestamp>1247595360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Zed programs<br>Nobody cares<br>Whines</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Zed programsNobody caresWhines</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Zed programsNobody caresWhines</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691603</id>
	<title>Re:Oh wow, it's almost exactly why I don't like GP</title>
	<author>omnichad</author>
	<datestamp>1247588880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or just write/use a license that requires attribution...  Am I a genius?  Cause this guy sounds smart and he didn't think of it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or just write/use a license that requires attribution... Am I a genius ?
Cause this guy sounds smart and he did n't think of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or just write/use a license that requires attribution...  Am I a genius?
Cause this guy sounds smart and he didn't think of it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691203</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28696319</id>
	<title>Re:Typical Programmer EGO</title>
	<author>JAlexoi</author>
	<datestamp>1247565840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You have not seen any rants of any actors. Now those really have "entitlement EGO issues"</htmltext>
<tokenext>You have not seen any rants of any actors .
Now those really have " entitlement EGO issues "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have not seen any rants of any actors.
Now those really have "entitlement EGO issues"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691393</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691195</id>
	<title>Let's not reinvent the wheel.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247586960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You take the software, and use it like Excalibur to slay your dragon and then take the credit for it.</p></div><p>Or it's code re-use taken to sensible extremes.</p><p>Let's fact it, you might have written an engine/framework, but that doesn't make an implementation as easy as installing it. The effort is in specifying the behaviour, sitting through tedious meetings, etc, and then implementing that behaviour using your engine/framework, because reinventing the IT wheel is so 1990s.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You take the software , and use it like Excalibur to slay your dragon and then take the credit for it.Or it 's code re-use taken to sensible extremes.Let 's fact it , you might have written an engine/framework , but that does n't make an implementation as easy as installing it .
The effort is in specifying the behaviour , sitting through tedious meetings , etc , and then implementing that behaviour using your engine/framework , because reinventing the IT wheel is so 1990s .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You take the software, and use it like Excalibur to slay your dragon and then take the credit for it.Or it's code re-use taken to sensible extremes.Let's fact it, you might have written an engine/framework, but that doesn't make an implementation as easy as installing it.
The effort is in specifying the behaviour, sitting through tedious meetings, etc, and then implementing that behaviour using your engine/framework, because reinventing the IT wheel is so 1990s.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691035</id>
	<title>agreed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247586240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I could not agree more...</p><p>The BSD, MIT licenses (even if more open) are for mugs who end up having their code "stolen" !<br>By this I mean that some half-witted asshat will grab the source tree, make some minor changes to it and then resell it as his own work.</p><p>Pretty idiotic and frustrating for the developer who put in all the work and ends up as a unwanting slave who receives no credit and no monetary reward...</p><p>Just my 2c.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I could not agree more...The BSD , MIT licenses ( even if more open ) are for mugs who end up having their code " stolen " ! By this I mean that some half-witted asshat will grab the source tree , make some minor changes to it and then resell it as his own work.Pretty idiotic and frustrating for the developer who put in all the work and ends up as a unwanting slave who receives no credit and no monetary reward...Just my 2c .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I could not agree more...The BSD, MIT licenses (even if more open) are for mugs who end up having their code "stolen" !By this I mean that some half-witted asshat will grab the source tree, make some minor changes to it and then resell it as his own work.Pretty idiotic and frustrating for the developer who put in all the work and ends up as a unwanting slave who receives no credit and no monetary reward...Just my 2c.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691203</id>
	<title>Oh wow, it's almost exactly why I don't like GPL</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247587020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Especially the 'lets pretend to be free software but charge certain people for their freedoms' part. The GPLv2 is a measure to prevent people from taking away freedoms in our modern, copyright-dominated world. That's fine and all; except that now we get people whining about attribution as well as people that feel they are justified in charging extra for 'proprietary' licenses. In my opinion it's two-faced to at one point call yourself a free software project, using the GPLv2 ostensibly to keep free free, and then charge companies to make it non-free.</p><p>He continues to whine on about attribution and how it's so bad that some guy in some corporation can use his software without him getting attribution that he thinks he deserves (protip: you don't). If he really wanted it, he'd start a corporation selling his software as proprietary, locked-down blobs like the proprietary software corporations he whines about a lot.</p><p>Note that I say GPLv2. v3 is Stallman's attempts at controlling hardware through the copyright regime.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Especially the 'lets pretend to be free software but charge certain people for their freedoms ' part .
The GPLv2 is a measure to prevent people from taking away freedoms in our modern , copyright-dominated world .
That 's fine and all ; except that now we get people whining about attribution as well as people that feel they are justified in charging extra for 'proprietary ' licenses .
In my opinion it 's two-faced to at one point call yourself a free software project , using the GPLv2 ostensibly to keep free free , and then charge companies to make it non-free.He continues to whine on about attribution and how it 's so bad that some guy in some corporation can use his software without him getting attribution that he thinks he deserves ( protip : you do n't ) .
If he really wanted it , he 'd start a corporation selling his software as proprietary , locked-down blobs like the proprietary software corporations he whines about a lot.Note that I say GPLv2 .
v3 is Stallman 's attempts at controlling hardware through the copyright regime .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Especially the 'lets pretend to be free software but charge certain people for their freedoms' part.
The GPLv2 is a measure to prevent people from taking away freedoms in our modern, copyright-dominated world.
That's fine and all; except that now we get people whining about attribution as well as people that feel they are justified in charging extra for 'proprietary' licenses.
In my opinion it's two-faced to at one point call yourself a free software project, using the GPLv2 ostensibly to keep free free, and then charge companies to make it non-free.He continues to whine on about attribution and how it's so bad that some guy in some corporation can use his software without him getting attribution that he thinks he deserves (protip: you don't).
If he really wanted it, he'd start a corporation selling his software as proprietary, locked-down blobs like the proprietary software corporations he whines about a lot.Note that I say GPLv2.
v3 is Stallman's attempts at controlling hardware through the copyright regime.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28693825</id>
	<title>Re:Money quote</title>
	<author>mellon</author>
	<datestamp>1247597880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Generally speaking, massive patches are more trouble than they're worth.   And I don't think it's reasonable to think that a small patch ought to get you a cut.   From my own experience, a bug report is much, much less trouble than a patch, particularly if it's repeatable.   Of course, once you have a repeatable bug, you're so close to writing a patch that the difference is trivial, but emotionally someone submitting a bug report is a lot less likely to be attached to owning what they did.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Generally speaking , massive patches are more trouble than they 're worth .
And I do n't think it 's reasonable to think that a small patch ought to get you a cut .
From my own experience , a bug report is much , much less trouble than a patch , particularly if it 's repeatable .
Of course , once you have a repeatable bug , you 're so close to writing a patch that the difference is trivial , but emotionally someone submitting a bug report is a lot less likely to be attached to owning what they did .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Generally speaking, massive patches are more trouble than they're worth.
And I don't think it's reasonable to think that a small patch ought to get you a cut.
From my own experience, a bug report is much, much less trouble than a patch, particularly if it's repeatable.
Of course, once you have a repeatable bug, you're so close to writing a patch that the difference is trivial, but emotionally someone submitting a bug report is a lot less likely to be attached to owning what they did.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691513</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691613</id>
	<title>First "I wrote stuff and didn't get rich" rant...</title>
	<author>Lazy Jones</author>
	<datestamp>1247588880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... that is pro GPL.
<p>
Well, times change. Those rants used to be against the GPL and we used to slap "use a BSD license and write code for fun" in their faces. They used to complain about the GPL not being enforceable and companies ripping them off, now they think it is and they'd rather not see their code used than someone else getting rich with a company using GPL code.
</p><p>
While I do see a great value in having GPL software available for everyone, the fact that it is actually for the most part used intentionally to prevent businesses from building some (non-GPL'd) products using GPL software, makes me sad because it prevents good quality code from spreading, only to be replaced by (probably) crappy closed source code or (hopefully!) good quality BSD licensed code.</p><p>
Next time I buy, say, a WLAN router, do I want it to be using good quality code? Hell, yeah. Would I prefer one with GPL'd software if it has a competitive price? Of course. Will I have the choice to buy one? Nope... (right now I use Tomato, which has <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomato\_(firmware)#License" title="wikipedia.org">a slightly confusing license</a> [wikipedia.org]).
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... that is pro GPL .
Well , times change .
Those rants used to be against the GPL and we used to slap " use a BSD license and write code for fun " in their faces .
They used to complain about the GPL not being enforceable and companies ripping them off , now they think it is and they 'd rather not see their code used than someone else getting rich with a company using GPL code .
While I do see a great value in having GPL software available for everyone , the fact that it is actually for the most part used intentionally to prevent businesses from building some ( non-GPL 'd ) products using GPL software , makes me sad because it prevents good quality code from spreading , only to be replaced by ( probably ) crappy closed source code or ( hopefully !
) good quality BSD licensed code .
Next time I buy , say , a WLAN router , do I want it to be using good quality code ?
Hell , yeah .
Would I prefer one with GPL 'd software if it has a competitive price ?
Of course .
Will I have the choice to buy one ?
Nope... ( right now I use Tomato , which has a slightly confusing license [ wikipedia.org ] ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... that is pro GPL.
Well, times change.
Those rants used to be against the GPL and we used to slap "use a BSD license and write code for fun" in their faces.
They used to complain about the GPL not being enforceable and companies ripping them off, now they think it is and they'd rather not see their code used than someone else getting rich with a company using GPL code.
While I do see a great value in having GPL software available for everyone, the fact that it is actually for the most part used intentionally to prevent businesses from building some (non-GPL'd) products using GPL software, makes me sad because it prevents good quality code from spreading, only to be replaced by (probably) crappy closed source code or (hopefully!
) good quality BSD licensed code.
Next time I buy, say, a WLAN router, do I want it to be using good quality code?
Hell, yeah.
Would I prefer one with GPL'd software if it has a competitive price?
Of course.
Will I have the choice to buy one?
Nope... (right now I use Tomato, which has a slightly confusing license [wikipedia.org]).
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28692707</id>
	<title>Re:"I Dont Want To Be Ignored Again" he says.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247593560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>My 2 Euros.</p></div><p>Christ, is inflation that out of control?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>My 2 Euros.Christ , is inflation that out of control ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My 2 Euros.Christ, is inflation that out of control?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691811</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28694027</id>
	<title>BSD is not 'more open'</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247598780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The BSD license is more open only in the sense that the democratic constitution which allowed the German population to vote away their democracy was more 'democratic' for allowing it.</p><p>The GPL guarantees the code and all additions will remain open. BSD allows corporations to take the code tree, add their own code additions and close the result. That's why Microsoft and other large anti competitive companies champion the "open source" BSD license over the "open source" GPL license. The former, suits their purposes more in their futile attempt to shut down the GPL.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The BSD license is more open only in the sense that the democratic constitution which allowed the German population to vote away their democracy was more 'democratic ' for allowing it.The GPL guarantees the code and all additions will remain open .
BSD allows corporations to take the code tree , add their own code additions and close the result .
That 's why Microsoft and other large anti competitive companies champion the " open source " BSD license over the " open source " GPL license .
The former , suits their purposes more in their futile attempt to shut down the GPL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The BSD license is more open only in the sense that the democratic constitution which allowed the German population to vote away their democracy was more 'democratic' for allowing it.The GPL guarantees the code and all additions will remain open.
BSD allows corporations to take the code tree, add their own code additions and close the result.
That's why Microsoft and other large anti competitive companies champion the "open source" BSD license over the "open source" GPL license.
The former, suits their purposes more in their futile attempt to shut down the GPL.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691035</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691043</id>
	<title>Comparison shop</title>
	<author>inKubus</author>
	<datestamp>1247586240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I like to implement open source, show them what it would've costed, and then ask the company to donate to the project so we can continue to get updates or support.  Usually larger companies have some money sitting around so it's pretty easy to get 40-100 bucks to send to an individual for a good package.  FYI, The last one we contributed to was <a href="http://www.jqgrid.org/" title="jqgrid.org">jqGrid</a> [jqgrid.org], because it's awesome.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I like to implement open source , show them what it would 've costed , and then ask the company to donate to the project so we can continue to get updates or support .
Usually larger companies have some money sitting around so it 's pretty easy to get 40-100 bucks to send to an individual for a good package .
FYI , The last one we contributed to was jqGrid [ jqgrid.org ] , because it 's awesome .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like to implement open source, show them what it would've costed, and then ask the company to donate to the project so we can continue to get updates or support.
Usually larger companies have some money sitting around so it's pretty easy to get 40-100 bucks to send to an individual for a good package.
FYI, The last one we contributed to was jqGrid [jqgrid.org], because it's awesome.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28693003</id>
	<title>Re:Don't bust on my excuse.</title>
	<author>morgan\_greywolf</author>
	<datestamp>1247594580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I can't code is my excuse! Don't go messing that up for me! I have a good thing going.</p></div><p>Muahahaha....<a href="http://docs.python.org/tutorial/" title="python.org" rel="nofollow">we have ways of teaching you to code</a> [python.org]!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't code is my excuse !
Do n't go messing that up for me !
I have a good thing going.Muahahaha....we have ways of teaching you to code [ python.org ] !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't code is my excuse!
Don't go messing that up for me!
I have a good thing going.Muahahaha....we have ways of teaching you to code [python.org]!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28690935</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691911</id>
	<title>Re:Give me an example</title>
	<author>FlyingBishop</author>
	<datestamp>1247590080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He specifically cites Ruby on Rails (and he wrote Mongrel, which is a server somewhere in the RoR stack.)</p><p>RoR isn't exactly "one guy," but the principle is the same. People take an off-the-shelf system and claim to be wizards when it works as designed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He specifically cites Ruby on Rails ( and he wrote Mongrel , which is a server somewhere in the RoR stack .
) RoR is n't exactly " one guy , " but the principle is the same .
People take an off-the-shelf system and claim to be wizards when it works as designed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He specifically cites Ruby on Rails (and he wrote Mongrel, which is a server somewhere in the RoR stack.
)RoR isn't exactly "one guy," but the principle is the same.
People take an off-the-shelf system and claim to be wizards when it works as designed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691389</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28696737</id>
	<title>Re:agreed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247567820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>no it isn't.  they get contributions back when people who use it want to give contributions back.  that's the whole point.  sometimes they get contributions, sometimes they don't.</p><p>Oh yeah, and to the guy above you, BSD hasn't been attribution required since 4clause was renounced because it was attribution required (attribution required is a bad thing.)</p><p>This post contains software written by the Regents of the University of California<br>This post contains software written by some BSD user<br>This post contains software written by a jackass who changed the license to demand attention</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>no it is n't .
they get contributions back when people who use it want to give contributions back .
that 's the whole point .
sometimes they get contributions , sometimes they do n't.Oh yeah , and to the guy above you , BSD has n't been attribution required since 4clause was renounced because it was attribution required ( attribution required is a bad thing .
) This post contains software written by the Regents of the University of CaliforniaThis post contains software written by some BSD userThis post contains software written by a jackass who changed the license to demand attention</tokentext>
<sentencetext>no it isn't.
they get contributions back when people who use it want to give contributions back.
that's the whole point.
sometimes they get contributions, sometimes they don't.Oh yeah, and to the guy above you, BSD hasn't been attribution required since 4clause was renounced because it was attribution required (attribution required is a bad thing.
)This post contains software written by the Regents of the University of CaliforniaThis post contains software written by some BSD userThis post contains software written by a jackass who changed the license to demand attention</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691631</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691569</id>
	<title>OSS 101</title>
	<author>v(*\_*)vvvv</author>
	<datestamp>1247588700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Dual-licensing always seemed like a no-brainer to me.</p></div><p>This cannot be emphasized enough.</p><p>Businesses have money. Their sole purpose is to make it and not use it. If you give them the option to not use it, they will gladly accept. But if you don't give them that option, they will gladly pay, if what you are offering is worth the price.</p><p>Nothing is personal about a business, and it seems many GPL programmers expect some transaction on some personal level, like an IOU or something. But if you take the money element out of a business transaction, there is no human element left. Unless the law requires it, they owe you nothing, and they have better things to do than console you.</p><p>If you don't dual license your OSS, then you are not interested in making money. You are making it clear, and you cannot expect anything in return. If you do dual license, then you are asking for money from those who make it. They will review your value proposition, and either accept, or go to a competitor.</p><p><b>Make your intentions clear with the licenses you choose, not with your mouth or your blog.</b></p><p>It is that cut and dry. There really isn't much to rant about.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dual-licensing always seemed like a no-brainer to me.This can not be emphasized enough.Businesses have money .
Their sole purpose is to make it and not use it .
If you give them the option to not use it , they will gladly accept .
But if you do n't give them that option , they will gladly pay , if what you are offering is worth the price.Nothing is personal about a business , and it seems many GPL programmers expect some transaction on some personal level , like an IOU or something .
But if you take the money element out of a business transaction , there is no human element left .
Unless the law requires it , they owe you nothing , and they have better things to do than console you.If you do n't dual license your OSS , then you are not interested in making money .
You are making it clear , and you can not expect anything in return .
If you do dual license , then you are asking for money from those who make it .
They will review your value proposition , and either accept , or go to a competitor.Make your intentions clear with the licenses you choose , not with your mouth or your blog.It is that cut and dry .
There really is n't much to rant about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dual-licensing always seemed like a no-brainer to me.This cannot be emphasized enough.Businesses have money.
Their sole purpose is to make it and not use it.
If you give them the option to not use it, they will gladly accept.
But if you don't give them that option, they will gladly pay, if what you are offering is worth the price.Nothing is personal about a business, and it seems many GPL programmers expect some transaction on some personal level, like an IOU or something.
But if you take the money element out of a business transaction, there is no human element left.
Unless the law requires it, they owe you nothing, and they have better things to do than console you.If you don't dual license your OSS, then you are not interested in making money.
You are making it clear, and you cannot expect anything in return.
If you do dual license, then you are asking for money from those who make it.
They will review your value proposition, and either accept, or go to a competitor.Make your intentions clear with the licenses you choose, not with your mouth or your blog.It is that cut and dry.
There really isn't much to rant about.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691033</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691393</id>
	<title>Typical Programmer EGO</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247587920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is nothing more than typical programmer entitlement EGO issues.</p><p>I want credit for this, I want credit for that, I want a job at your company, because I made XXX.</p><p>But what about the OTHER people who made YYY, so YOU could do XXX?</p><p>What about all the other libraries, API's, and documentation YOU used? Did you give credit to them?</p><p>Get off the high-horse, and get rid of all this entitlement you THINK you deserve.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is nothing more than typical programmer entitlement EGO issues.I want credit for this , I want credit for that , I want a job at your company , because I made XXX.But what about the OTHER people who made YYY , so YOU could do XXX ? What about all the other libraries , API 's , and documentation YOU used ?
Did you give credit to them ? Get off the high-horse , and get rid of all this entitlement you THINK you deserve .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is nothing more than typical programmer entitlement EGO issues.I want credit for this, I want credit for that, I want a job at your company, because I made XXX.But what about the OTHER people who made YYY, so YOU could do XXX?What about all the other libraries, API's, and documentation YOU used?
Did you give credit to them?Get off the high-horse, and get rid of all this entitlement you THINK you deserve.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691855</id>
	<title>Re:Not really for that</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247589840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Quite -- the author even cites "being able to license your code how you like" as a basic right of programmers... And yet, what the GPL does is tells the people who contribute code back how they must license *their* code.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Quite -- the author even cites " being able to license your code how you like " as a basic right of programmers... And yet , what the GPL does is tells the people who contribute code back how they must license * their * code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quite -- the author even cites "being able to license your code how you like" as a basic right of programmers... And yet, what the GPL does is tells the people who contribute code back how they must license *their* code.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28690997</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28695197</id>
	<title>Re:Fuck off, Zed (whoever the hell you are)</title>
	<author>ckaminski</author>
	<datestamp>1247604720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Using GPL software does not cause a license violation.  Modifying and DISTRIBUTING GPL software causes license violations.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)  Big difference.  Use all the GPL software I write to your hearts content, but don't think about changing it or distributing your derivative product.  How hard is that to understand?  Christ, I understood it as a high-school junior 16 some-odd years ago fresh to the Unix world.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Using GPL software does not cause a license violation .
Modifying and DISTRIBUTING GPL software causes license violations .
: - ) Big difference .
Use all the GPL software I write to your hearts content , but do n't think about changing it or distributing your derivative product .
How hard is that to understand ?
Christ , I understood it as a high-school junior 16 some-odd years ago fresh to the Unix world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Using GPL software does not cause a license violation.
Modifying and DISTRIBUTING GPL software causes license violations.
:-)  Big difference.
Use all the GPL software I write to your hearts content, but don't think about changing it or distributing your derivative product.
How hard is that to understand?
Christ, I understood it as a high-school junior 16 some-odd years ago fresh to the Unix world.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691611</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691487</id>
	<title>Got my attention</title>
	<author>ears\_d</author>
	<datestamp>1247588400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I seldom log in to Slashdot yet I did after reading your words. I think you're right on, but then again I also have problems with pent up anger.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I seldom log in to Slashdot yet I did after reading your words .
I think you 're right on , but then again I also have problems with pent up anger .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I seldom log in to Slashdot yet I did after reading your words.
I think you're right on, but then again I also have problems with pent up anger.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28693493</id>
	<title>Re:Not really for that</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247596500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your code may be free but your work may be used by non-free software without any recognition. And no, it is not just the ones that steal the code. There is a ton of crap out there that all it does is make a little GPL wrapper 'foo' for the GPL stuff you make, then the 'foo' wrapper is called from the command line and can be used as a sort of API interface to for the GUI.</p><p>DVD and video encoders use that all the time.</p><p>But hey, that is not considered "linking" even though they don't add much except a skin on top of the GPL program, then charge $60 not disclosing it is even using free code.</p><p>The Achilles heel of GPL</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your code may be free but your work may be used by non-free software without any recognition .
And no , it is not just the ones that steal the code .
There is a ton of crap out there that all it does is make a little GPL wrapper 'foo ' for the GPL stuff you make , then the 'foo ' wrapper is called from the command line and can be used as a sort of API interface to for the GUI.DVD and video encoders use that all the time.But hey , that is not considered " linking " even though they do n't add much except a skin on top of the GPL program , then charge $ 60 not disclosing it is even using free code.The Achilles heel of GPL</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your code may be free but your work may be used by non-free software without any recognition.
And no, it is not just the ones that steal the code.
There is a ton of crap out there that all it does is make a little GPL wrapper 'foo' for the GPL stuff you make, then the 'foo' wrapper is called from the command line and can be used as a sort of API interface to for the GUI.DVD and video encoders use that all the time.But hey, that is not considered "linking" even though they don't add much except a skin on top of the GPL program, then charge $60 not disclosing it is even using free code.The Achilles heel of GPL</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28690997</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28692033</id>
	<title>Re:Not really for that</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1247590620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you want to ensure your code is always free you don't use *GPL.</p><p>GPL isn't about your code, its about you wanting other people to comply with your idea of freedom by restricting them.</p><p>BSD licensed code will always be free, and I wish douche bags like yourself would stop implying that it can somehow be made 'not free'.</p><p>Just because someone can use your code in a closed source project doesn't make your code any less free.  They don't get ownership of the copyright.  They can't make anyone else stop using it.  All they can do is make THEIR PORTION OF THE CODE not-free.</p><p>Stop acting like *GPL is more free than a BSD license.  It is less free, intentionally.  It adds restrictions to ensure that everyone has to contribute back to the pot.  Thats roughly the same as saying 'Get a years worth of gasoline for free!!! (when you buy this new car from us)'.</p><p>Thats not free, thats a scam.  You are continuing the scam.</p><p>GPL isn't the problem here, its a very valid and useful license, but douche bags like yourself are twisting it and manipulating it into something its not for your own wishes.</p><p>Use BSD/MIT if you want attribution for your work and you just want to give people something to use anywhere.  Use GPL if you are more concerned with making sure no one builds an entirely new product based around/using your code without giving back to the community.</p><p>The two licenses serve different purposes and can serve them well, but using one to push your agenda  by propagating falsehoods about how one is 'more free' than the other is wrong, especially when you have it backwards be pretty much every possible definition.</p><p>If you want your code to be 'free' as in 'libre' you use BSD/MIT.  If you want to make sure someone doesn't just swallow your code and take all of your work and contribute nothing back then you use GPL with its added restrictions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you want to ensure your code is always free you do n't use * GPL.GPL is n't about your code , its about you wanting other people to comply with your idea of freedom by restricting them.BSD licensed code will always be free , and I wish douche bags like yourself would stop implying that it can somehow be made 'not free'.Just because someone can use your code in a closed source project does n't make your code any less free .
They do n't get ownership of the copyright .
They ca n't make anyone else stop using it .
All they can do is make THEIR PORTION OF THE CODE not-free.Stop acting like * GPL is more free than a BSD license .
It is less free , intentionally .
It adds restrictions to ensure that everyone has to contribute back to the pot .
Thats roughly the same as saying 'Get a years worth of gasoline for free ! ! !
( when you buy this new car from us ) '.Thats not free , thats a scam .
You are continuing the scam.GPL is n't the problem here , its a very valid and useful license , but douche bags like yourself are twisting it and manipulating it into something its not for your own wishes.Use BSD/MIT if you want attribution for your work and you just want to give people something to use anywhere .
Use GPL if you are more concerned with making sure no one builds an entirely new product based around/using your code without giving back to the community.The two licenses serve different purposes and can serve them well , but using one to push your agenda by propagating falsehoods about how one is 'more free ' than the other is wrong , especially when you have it backwards be pretty much every possible definition.If you want your code to be 'free ' as in 'libre ' you use BSD/MIT .
If you want to make sure someone does n't just swallow your code and take all of your work and contribute nothing back then you use GPL with its added restrictions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you want to ensure your code is always free you don't use *GPL.GPL isn't about your code, its about you wanting other people to comply with your idea of freedom by restricting them.BSD licensed code will always be free, and I wish douche bags like yourself would stop implying that it can somehow be made 'not free'.Just because someone can use your code in a closed source project doesn't make your code any less free.
They don't get ownership of the copyright.
They can't make anyone else stop using it.
All they can do is make THEIR PORTION OF THE CODE not-free.Stop acting like *GPL is more free than a BSD license.
It is less free, intentionally.
It adds restrictions to ensure that everyone has to contribute back to the pot.
Thats roughly the same as saying 'Get a years worth of gasoline for free!!!
(when you buy this new car from us)'.Thats not free, thats a scam.
You are continuing the scam.GPL isn't the problem here, its a very valid and useful license, but douche bags like yourself are twisting it and manipulating it into something its not for your own wishes.Use BSD/MIT if you want attribution for your work and you just want to give people something to use anywhere.
Use GPL if you are more concerned with making sure no one builds an entirely new product based around/using your code without giving back to the community.The two licenses serve different purposes and can serve them well, but using one to push your agenda  by propagating falsehoods about how one is 'more free' than the other is wrong, especially when you have it backwards be pretty much every possible definition.If you want your code to be 'free' as in 'libre' you use BSD/MIT.
If you want to make sure someone doesn't just swallow your code and take all of your work and contribute nothing back then you use GPL with its added restrictions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28690997</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28692735</id>
	<title>Wow let's post some random douche blog on slashdot</title>
	<author>TyrainDreams</author>
	<datestamp>1247593620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey, awesome, more crappy slashdot articles.</p><p>First of all this guy has shit music on his website that I am under the impression he created.(dude learn to operate a mixer)</p><p>Second the GPL is the least open of open source licenses.</p><p>Third you're and asshole get over it.</p><p>"Honestly, how many of you people who use open source tell your boss what you're using?"</p><p>I do every fucking day, he loves the words open source. He loves to hear that were using more and more open source projects in house. They reduce cost and he happens to be our CFO. He likes that it cost's us nothing but manpower to update to the latest version of our database and that a new server doesn't cost anything more than the hardware. My company LOVES open source. And so I proudly admit that I am using it.</p><p>"How many of you tell investors that your entire operation is based on something one guy wrote in a few months?"</p><p>The fuck do you even know about investors, I doubt they even know a damn thing about code in the first place. You tell them things like, we just launched a new website, we just changed over to the newest version of our database software and its improving our work flow. You don't go up to an investor and bore the shit out of him with the details of what the EULA was or who the vendor was when its proprietary, nothing changes when it's open source.</p><p>"How many of you out there go to management and say, 'Hey, you know there's this guy Zed who wrote the software I'm using, why don't we hire him as a consultant?'"</p><p>Because I already have your code, stop bitching that you can't acquire a job. If you were half as good as you think you are and less of a total douchebag I'm sure someone would hire your bitch ass.</p><p>Grow a pair of testicles you whiny bitch. Get over yourself. Who the fuck are you? You have one email server for your project??? Dude I wrote XScale patches that got merged into the kernel and no-one even notified me. Guess what? I DONT GIVE A FUCK.</p><p>Ugh why does anyone care this fucking loser is ranting about how much of a bitch he is.</p><p>Fuck this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey , awesome , more crappy slashdot articles.First of all this guy has shit music on his website that I am under the impression he created .
( dude learn to operate a mixer ) Second the GPL is the least open of open source licenses.Third you 're and asshole get over it .
" Honestly , how many of you people who use open source tell your boss what you 're using ?
" I do every fucking day , he loves the words open source .
He loves to hear that were using more and more open source projects in house .
They reduce cost and he happens to be our CFO .
He likes that it cost 's us nothing but manpower to update to the latest version of our database and that a new server does n't cost anything more than the hardware .
My company LOVES open source .
And so I proudly admit that I am using it .
" How many of you tell investors that your entire operation is based on something one guy wrote in a few months ?
" The fuck do you even know about investors , I doubt they even know a damn thing about code in the first place .
You tell them things like , we just launched a new website , we just changed over to the newest version of our database software and its improving our work flow .
You do n't go up to an investor and bore the shit out of him with the details of what the EULA was or who the vendor was when its proprietary , nothing changes when it 's open source .
" How many of you out there go to management and say , 'Hey , you know there 's this guy Zed who wrote the software I 'm using , why do n't we hire him as a consultant ?
' " Because I already have your code , stop bitching that you ca n't acquire a job .
If you were half as good as you think you are and less of a total douchebag I 'm sure someone would hire your bitch ass.Grow a pair of testicles you whiny bitch .
Get over yourself .
Who the fuck are you ?
You have one email server for your project ? ? ?
Dude I wrote XScale patches that got merged into the kernel and no-one even notified me .
Guess what ?
I DONT GIVE A FUCK.Ugh why does anyone care this fucking loser is ranting about how much of a bitch he is.Fuck this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey, awesome, more crappy slashdot articles.First of all this guy has shit music on his website that I am under the impression he created.
(dude learn to operate a mixer)Second the GPL is the least open of open source licenses.Third you're and asshole get over it.
"Honestly, how many of you people who use open source tell your boss what you're using?
"I do every fucking day, he loves the words open source.
He loves to hear that were using more and more open source projects in house.
They reduce cost and he happens to be our CFO.
He likes that it cost's us nothing but manpower to update to the latest version of our database and that a new server doesn't cost anything more than the hardware.
My company LOVES open source.
And so I proudly admit that I am using it.
"How many of you tell investors that your entire operation is based on something one guy wrote in a few months?
"The fuck do you even know about investors, I doubt they even know a damn thing about code in the first place.
You tell them things like, we just launched a new website, we just changed over to the newest version of our database software and its improving our work flow.
You don't go up to an investor and bore the shit out of him with the details of what the EULA was or who the vendor was when its proprietary, nothing changes when it's open source.
"How many of you out there go to management and say, 'Hey, you know there's this guy Zed who wrote the software I'm using, why don't we hire him as a consultant?
'"Because I already have your code, stop bitching that you can't acquire a job.
If you were half as good as you think you are and less of a total douchebag I'm sure someone would hire your bitch ass.Grow a pair of testicles you whiny bitch.
Get over yourself.
Who the fuck are you?
You have one email server for your project???
Dude I wrote XScale patches that got merged into the kernel and no-one even notified me.
Guess what?
I DONT GIVE A FUCK.Ugh why does anyone care this fucking loser is ranting about how much of a bitch he is.Fuck this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28695045</id>
	<title>Share the love</title>
	<author>mr.dreadful</author>
	<datestamp>1247603940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm not here to slag on Zed. He has a point, especially about developers using open source software.

Share the love, or more specifically, the credit and the cash.

I'm the primary developer for a middle sized web site, and we use drupal. I've made a point of making sure that we share our experiences with anyone who asks, helping out the Drupal association when I can, and most importantly: supporting the developers who make all this happen. Most Drupal developers tend to work for small companies and I've hired several of these companies to help us with various projects. They share their time, expertise, and insight, and we share the cash and the love.

In my experience so far, it has been a win-win.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not here to slag on Zed .
He has a point , especially about developers using open source software .
Share the love , or more specifically , the credit and the cash .
I 'm the primary developer for a middle sized web site , and we use drupal .
I 've made a point of making sure that we share our experiences with anyone who asks , helping out the Drupal association when I can , and most importantly : supporting the developers who make all this happen .
Most Drupal developers tend to work for small companies and I 've hired several of these companies to help us with various projects .
They share their time , expertise , and insight , and we share the cash and the love .
In my experience so far , it has been a win-win .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not here to slag on Zed.
He has a point, especially about developers using open source software.
Share the love, or more specifically, the credit and the cash.
I'm the primary developer for a middle sized web site, and we use drupal.
I've made a point of making sure that we share our experiences with anyone who asks, helping out the Drupal association when I can, and most importantly: supporting the developers who make all this happen.
Most Drupal developers tend to work for small companies and I've hired several of these companies to help us with various projects.
They share their time, expertise, and insight, and we share the cash and the love.
In my experience so far, it has been a win-win.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691209</id>
	<title>With sympathy.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247587080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cry baby cry<br>Cry baby cry<br>Make your mother sigh<br>She's old enough to know better<br>So cry baby cry cry cry cry baby<br>Make your mother sigh.</p><p>She's old enough to know better<br>Cry baby cry<br>cry cry cry<br>Make your mother sigh<br>She's old enough to know better<br>So cry baby cry.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cry baby cryCry baby cryMake your mother sighShe 's old enough to know betterSo cry baby cry cry cry cry babyMake your mother sigh.She 's old enough to know betterCry baby crycry cry cryMake your mother sighShe 's old enough to know betterSo cry baby cry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cry baby cryCry baby cryMake your mother sighShe's old enough to know betterSo cry baby cry cry cry cry babyMake your mother sigh.She's old enough to know betterCry baby crycry cry cryMake your mother sighShe's old enough to know betterSo cry baby cry.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28692813</id>
	<title>Re:Whining</title>
	<author>incense</author>
	<datestamp>1247593860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Oh God! I hate whining bastards!  They just WHINE WHINE WHINE!</p></div><p>STOP WHINING!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh God !
I hate whining bastards !
They just WHINE WHINE WHINE ! STOP WHINING !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh God!
I hate whining bastards!
They just WHINE WHINE WHINE!STOP WHINING!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691277</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28694593</id>
	<title>What a moron</title>
	<author>elnyka</author>
	<datestamp>1247601420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Hey, you know there's this guy Zed who wrote the software I'm using, why don't we hire him as a consultant?' You don't. None of you. You take the software, and use it like Excalibur to slay your dragon and then take the credit for it. You don't give out any credit, and in fact, I've ran into a vast majority of you who constantly try to say that I can't code as a way of covering your ass."</p></div><p>I don't know in what kind of planet this tard lives, but c'mon. Does he actually believe very few developers tell their bosses they use FOSS? Does he actually believe there are no bosses out there that know?</p><p>

Seriously, do your contribution because you like it, not because you expect some praise or some high chair. Nowhere in GPL or likewise licenses reads that someone cannot take FOSS code, built something with it, sell it and take credit for it without giving credit to the FOSS that he/she used. Why should it? These type of licenses are about giving some type of free choice in how to use things and how to preserve those choices as alterations get made to the code. </p><p>

I don't need to give praise to the creators of proprietary systems such as Java, or Linus Torvald or the Apache folks for FOSS tools for creating a solution for someone's very specific problem. My solution is my own. It took skills that are mine and mine along, both technical and business-like to come with that solution. The only time I would ever give such credit is if my solution is legally bound to making a contribution back to the tools used.</p><p>

Seriously, nothing screams "[(sour grapes+attention whore) * vaginal silicosis]^loser" more than a dude who makes FOSS contributions and cries momma because he isn't getting a cookie in return.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey , you know there 's this guy Zed who wrote the software I 'm using , why do n't we hire him as a consultant ?
' You do n't .
None of you .
You take the software , and use it like Excalibur to slay your dragon and then take the credit for it .
You do n't give out any credit , and in fact , I 've ran into a vast majority of you who constantly try to say that I ca n't code as a way of covering your ass .
" I do n't know in what kind of planet this tard lives , but c'mon .
Does he actually believe very few developers tell their bosses they use FOSS ?
Does he actually believe there are no bosses out there that know ?
Seriously , do your contribution because you like it , not because you expect some praise or some high chair .
Nowhere in GPL or likewise licenses reads that someone can not take FOSS code , built something with it , sell it and take credit for it without giving credit to the FOSS that he/she used .
Why should it ?
These type of licenses are about giving some type of free choice in how to use things and how to preserve those choices as alterations get made to the code .
I do n't need to give praise to the creators of proprietary systems such as Java , or Linus Torvald or the Apache folks for FOSS tools for creating a solution for someone 's very specific problem .
My solution is my own .
It took skills that are mine and mine along , both technical and business-like to come with that solution .
The only time I would ever give such credit is if my solution is legally bound to making a contribution back to the tools used .
Seriously , nothing screams " [ ( sour grapes + attention whore ) * vaginal silicosis ] ^ loser " more than a dude who makes FOSS contributions and cries momma because he is n't getting a cookie in return .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey, you know there's this guy Zed who wrote the software I'm using, why don't we hire him as a consultant?
' You don't.
None of you.
You take the software, and use it like Excalibur to slay your dragon and then take the credit for it.
You don't give out any credit, and in fact, I've ran into a vast majority of you who constantly try to say that I can't code as a way of covering your ass.
"I don't know in what kind of planet this tard lives, but c'mon.
Does he actually believe very few developers tell their bosses they use FOSS?
Does he actually believe there are no bosses out there that know?
Seriously, do your contribution because you like it, not because you expect some praise or some high chair.
Nowhere in GPL or likewise licenses reads that someone cannot take FOSS code, built something with it, sell it and take credit for it without giving credit to the FOSS that he/she used.
Why should it?
These type of licenses are about giving some type of free choice in how to use things and how to preserve those choices as alterations get made to the code.
I don't need to give praise to the creators of proprietary systems such as Java, or Linus Torvald or the Apache folks for FOSS tools for creating a solution for someone's very specific problem.
My solution is my own.
It took skills that are mine and mine along, both technical and business-like to come with that solution.
The only time I would ever give such credit is if my solution is legally bound to making a contribution back to the tools used.
Seriously, nothing screams "[(sour grapes+attention whore) * vaginal silicosis]^loser" more than a dude who makes FOSS contributions and cries momma because he isn't getting a cookie in return.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28701451</id>
	<title>Re:Awww, What Happened to Badass Zed?</title>
	<author>oliderid</author>
	<datestamp>1247656860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Personally I agree with him. The real issue is his writing style, a rebel teenager with some kind of a mission or to prove something I don't know and I don't care.</p><p>He just understood why companies like MySQL tried a dual license scheme. Frankly I don't know if it will work. The MYSQL commercial license turnover  was ridiculously low compared to the number of web sites/services using MySQL. I would rather advocate a professional technical support. both source of revenues made USD 10 millions per year. Which is not that much...Again compared to the MySQL popularity.</p><p> Programmers (and even more CIO) from large companies pay to get protection. In this case his writing style won't help him, nobody wants to deal with an arrogant person. That's why you make a start-up when you are a programmer, that's why you hire professionals to deal with communication &amp; marketing...I guess it will be his next discovery<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally I agree with him .
The real issue is his writing style , a rebel teenager with some kind of a mission or to prove something I do n't know and I do n't care.He just understood why companies like MySQL tried a dual license scheme .
Frankly I do n't know if it will work .
The MYSQL commercial license turnover was ridiculously low compared to the number of web sites/services using MySQL .
I would rather advocate a professional technical support .
both source of revenues made USD 10 millions per year .
Which is not that much...Again compared to the MySQL popularity .
Programmers ( and even more CIO ) from large companies pay to get protection .
In this case his writing style wo n't help him , nobody wants to deal with an arrogant person .
That 's why you make a start-up when you are a programmer , that 's why you hire professionals to deal with communication &amp; marketing...I guess it will be his next discovery : - ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally I agree with him.
The real issue is his writing style, a rebel teenager with some kind of a mission or to prove something I don't know and I don't care.He just understood why companies like MySQL tried a dual license scheme.
Frankly I don't know if it will work.
The MYSQL commercial license turnover  was ridiculously low compared to the number of web sites/services using MySQL.
I would rather advocate a professional technical support.
both source of revenues made USD 10 millions per year.
Which is not that much...Again compared to the MySQL popularity.
Programmers (and even more CIO) from large companies pay to get protection.
In this case his writing style won't help him, nobody wants to deal with an arrogant person.
That's why you make a start-up when you are a programmer, that's why you hire professionals to deal with communication &amp; marketing...I guess it will be his next discovery :-).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691071</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28693283</id>
	<title>Re:Not really for that</title>
	<author>Hognoxious</author>
	<datestamp>1247595720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Now $costumer can't profit from upstream bugfixes anymore.</p></div></blockquote><p>But at least he can <i>tailor</i> it to his own requirements.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now $ costumer ca n't profit from upstream bugfixes anymore.But at least he can tailor it to his own requirements .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now $costumer can't profit from upstream bugfixes anymore.But at least he can tailor it to his own requirements.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28692401</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691513</id>
	<title>Re:Money quote</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247588520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem with dual-licensing is that it practically kills reciprocation: If you use the open license, you can't contribute back, because then the merged code base can no longer be dual-licensed, unless you do what the original author just rejected: Allow someone else to make money on your work while you get nothing. Big projects often require that you sign over your rights to patches or they won't consider them for inclusion. It's a form of "do as I say, not as I do."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with dual-licensing is that it practically kills reciprocation : If you use the open license , you ca n't contribute back , because then the merged code base can no longer be dual-licensed , unless you do what the original author just rejected : Allow someone else to make money on your work while you get nothing .
Big projects often require that you sign over your rights to patches or they wo n't consider them for inclusion .
It 's a form of " do as I say , not as I do .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with dual-licensing is that it practically kills reciprocation: If you use the open license, you can't contribute back, because then the merged code base can no longer be dual-licensed, unless you do what the original author just rejected: Allow someone else to make money on your work while you get nothing.
Big projects often require that you sign over your rights to patches or they won't consider them for inclusion.
It's a form of "do as I say, not as I do.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691033</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691975</id>
	<title>The GPL is cancerous.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247590320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If it weren't for Mozilla's anti-patent zealotry and their wide market share, HTML 5 would have had a standardized video codec <a href="http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2009/07/decoding-the-html-5-video-codec-debate.ars" title="arstechnica.com" rel="nofollow">two years ago</a> [arstechnica.com]. It's not as if they can't afford licensing fees at this point.</p><p>When compiling a kernel driver for BSD or Windows, you will never, ever, <b>ever</b> see anything even remotely like "<a href="http://lwn.net/Articles/205644/" title="lwn.net" rel="nofollow">FATAL: modpost: GPL-incompatible module foo.ko uses GPL-only symbol 'usb\_register\_dev'</a> [lwn.net]".</p><p>There are countless other examples of the GPL stifling innovation, and it's the end-user that really loses out in the end. This would be perfectly fine if GPL advocates weren't influencing policy-makers, or using their market share in part to push their crusade.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it were n't for Mozilla 's anti-patent zealotry and their wide market share , HTML 5 would have had a standardized video codec two years ago [ arstechnica.com ] .
It 's not as if they ca n't afford licensing fees at this point.When compiling a kernel driver for BSD or Windows , you will never , ever , ever see anything even remotely like " FATAL : modpost : GPL-incompatible module foo.ko uses GPL-only symbol 'usb \ _register \ _dev ' [ lwn.net ] " .There are countless other examples of the GPL stifling innovation , and it 's the end-user that really loses out in the end .
This would be perfectly fine if GPL advocates were n't influencing policy-makers , or using their market share in part to push their crusade .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it weren't for Mozilla's anti-patent zealotry and their wide market share, HTML 5 would have had a standardized video codec two years ago [arstechnica.com].
It's not as if they can't afford licensing fees at this point.When compiling a kernel driver for BSD or Windows, you will never, ever, ever see anything even remotely like "FATAL: modpost: GPL-incompatible module foo.ko uses GPL-only symbol 'usb\_register\_dev' [lwn.net]".There are countless other examples of the GPL stifling innovation, and it's the end-user that really loses out in the end.
This would be perfectly fine if GPL advocates weren't influencing policy-makers, or using their market share in part to push their crusade.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28699827</id>
	<title>Re:Awww, What Happened to Badass Zed?</title>
	<author>mldi</author>
	<datestamp>1247590080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><p>I will send you $20 to stay in a hole, write software and restrict yourself from communicating with the outside world. Really, the world would be a better place.</p></div></blockquote><p>Wow, that's a bit harsh.  Who's the asshole again?...</p></div><p>To be fair, that <i>does</i> seems to be the conditions of so many of programming jobs nowadays...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I will send you $ 20 to stay in a hole , write software and restrict yourself from communicating with the outside world .
Really , the world would be a better place.Wow , that 's a bit harsh .
Who 's the asshole again ? ...To be fair , that does seems to be the conditions of so many of programming jobs nowadays.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I will send you $20 to stay in a hole, write software and restrict yourself from communicating with the outside world.
Really, the world would be a better place.Wow, that's a bit harsh.
Who's the asshole again?...To be fair, that does seems to be the conditions of so many of programming jobs nowadays...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691041</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691229</id>
	<title>What does the GPL have to do with ANYTHING here?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247587140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mod me a troll if you want, but the GPL has aboslutely NOTHING to do with his complaints. The GPL will not guarantee him to be hired, or his code praised. His attribution rights are the same as under an LGPL or BSD license. He is still just as liable to be called a hapless codemonkey who produces nothing but broken code, as if he had released under any other license. People will use his code to cover their asses in exactly the same fashion, whether its GPL or BSD or any other license. ALL the GPL does is make the code of the company free just as his code was free.</p><p>A GPL supporter uses it to keep software free. If your expectation of it is to somehow improve your career or reputation that you otherwise cannot support, you are not a free software enthusiast, you're just a loser.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mod me a troll if you want , but the GPL has aboslutely NOTHING to do with his complaints .
The GPL will not guarantee him to be hired , or his code praised .
His attribution rights are the same as under an LGPL or BSD license .
He is still just as liable to be called a hapless codemonkey who produces nothing but broken code , as if he had released under any other license .
People will use his code to cover their asses in exactly the same fashion , whether its GPL or BSD or any other license .
ALL the GPL does is make the code of the company free just as his code was free.A GPL supporter uses it to keep software free .
If your expectation of it is to somehow improve your career or reputation that you otherwise can not support , you are not a free software enthusiast , you 're just a loser .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mod me a troll if you want, but the GPL has aboslutely NOTHING to do with his complaints.
The GPL will not guarantee him to be hired, or his code praised.
His attribution rights are the same as under an LGPL or BSD license.
He is still just as liable to be called a hapless codemonkey who produces nothing but broken code, as if he had released under any other license.
People will use his code to cover their asses in exactly the same fashion, whether its GPL or BSD or any other license.
ALL the GPL does is make the code of the company free just as his code was free.A GPL supporter uses it to keep software free.
If your expectation of it is to somehow improve your career or reputation that you otherwise cannot support, you are not a free software enthusiast, you're just a loser.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28693157</id>
	<title>Re:"I Dont Want To Be Ignored Again" he says.</title>
	<author>krelian</author>
	<datestamp>1247595180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Your Mongrel site isn't bad, by FOSS standards that is</p></div><p>Although I don't mind the usual look of most FOSS projects (GNU software pages are a good example), I thought his website looked quite slick and modern.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your Mongrel site is n't bad , by FOSS standards that isAlthough I do n't mind the usual look of most FOSS projects ( GNU software pages are a good example ) , I thought his website looked quite slick and modern .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Your Mongrel site isn't bad, by FOSS standards that isAlthough I don't mind the usual look of most FOSS projects (GNU software pages are a good example), I thought his website looked quite slick and modern.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691811</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28694087</id>
	<title>A defense of BSD licenses</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247599020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A defense of BSD licenses: http://pwang.wordpress.com/2009/07/14/in-defense-of-bsd-licenses/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A defense of BSD licenses : http : //pwang.wordpress.com/2009/07/14/in-defense-of-bsd-licenses/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A defense of BSD licenses: http://pwang.wordpress.com/2009/07/14/in-defense-of-bsd-licenses/</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28692073</id>
	<title>Coding + Credits</title>
	<author>JosedeNoche</author>
	<datestamp>1247590800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>indeed coding programs or scripts does requires hardwork and dedication, but its up to you in decide to make it public or not.</htmltext>
<tokenext>indeed coding programs or scripts does requires hardwork and dedication , but its up to you in decide to make it public or not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>indeed coding programs or scripts does requires hardwork and dedication, but its up to you in decide to make it public or not.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691715</id>
	<title>Re:Why to not use GPL</title>
	<author>Sir\_Lewk</author>
	<datestamp>1247589360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>There are no shortage of non-viraly licensed projects out there that I don't need your GPL version.</p></div></blockquote><p>Then what's the big deal?  Just let them use their little license and ignore them.</p><p>Honestly I just don't understand the hostility from any side, coding is supposed to be fun people, stop getting all worked up!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are no shortage of non-viraly licensed projects out there that I do n't need your GPL version.Then what 's the big deal ?
Just let them use their little license and ignore them.Honestly I just do n't understand the hostility from any side , coding is supposed to be fun people , stop getting all worked up !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are no shortage of non-viraly licensed projects out there that I don't need your GPL version.Then what's the big deal?
Just let them use their little license and ignore them.Honestly I just don't understand the hostility from any side, coding is supposed to be fun people, stop getting all worked up!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691501</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28692097</id>
	<title>Re:Not really for that</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247590920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nobody is forced to contribute to a GPL project, thus nobody is forced to GPL their code.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nobody is forced to contribute to a GPL project , thus nobody is forced to GPL their code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nobody is forced to contribute to a GPL project, thus nobody is forced to GPL their code.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691855</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28693821</id>
	<title>Re:I do!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247597880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I tell my boss I used OSS, he hears, I saved him X number of man-weeks of development time.</p><p>And he turns around and brags about it too.  We just got a $10 Million contract largely because our company has a reputation for reuse (both from internal and external sources) which saves our customer money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I tell my boss I used OSS , he hears , I saved him X number of man-weeks of development time.And he turns around and brags about it too .
We just got a $ 10 Million contract largely because our company has a reputation for reuse ( both from internal and external sources ) which saves our customer money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I tell my boss I used OSS, he hears, I saved him X number of man-weeks of development time.And he turns around and brags about it too.
We just got a $10 Million contract largely because our company has a reputation for reuse (both from internal and external sources) which saves our customer money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691073</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691771</id>
	<title>me too</title>
	<author>hany</author>
	<datestamp>1247589480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After reading the article I can say "<i>me too</i>".</p><p>Now I just have to take a look at all the open source projects I'm releasing<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)<br>
(almost none but not zero)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After reading the article I can say " me too " .Now I just have to take a look at all the open source projects I 'm releasing ... : ) ( almost none but not zero )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After reading the article I can say "me too".Now I just have to take a look at all the open source projects I'm releasing ... :)
(almost none but not zero)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691647</id>
	<title>Sponsorship decals?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247589060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Sadly, none of Mongrel's success mattered for me. Even though everyone was using my software, the vast majority of firms using Mongrel were startups. The last thing a startup wants to admit is that they don't own their intellectual property. They want everyone, especially the VCs and investors, to believe that they're all geniuses who "innovated" everything they run.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
So if I build the next great NASCAR engine, I should credit Craftsman(TM) for making the sockets I used to assemble it?  Maybe these startups should also credit the RAM, mobo, and PS manufacturers for the parts in the server.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sadly , none of Mongrel 's success mattered for me .
Even though everyone was using my software , the vast majority of firms using Mongrel were startups .
The last thing a startup wants to admit is that they do n't own their intellectual property .
They want everyone , especially the VCs and investors , to believe that they 're all geniuses who " innovated " everything they run .
So if I build the next great NASCAR engine , I should credit Craftsman ( TM ) for making the sockets I used to assemble it ?
Maybe these startups should also credit the RAM , mobo , and PS manufacturers for the parts in the server .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sadly, none of Mongrel's success mattered for me.
Even though everyone was using my software, the vast majority of firms using Mongrel were startups.
The last thing a startup wants to admit is that they don't own their intellectual property.
They want everyone, especially the VCs and investors, to believe that they're all geniuses who "innovated" everything they run.
So if I build the next great NASCAR engine, I should credit Craftsman(TM) for making the sockets I used to assemble it?
Maybe these startups should also credit the RAM, mobo, and PS manufacturers for the parts in the server.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28692443</id>
	<title>Re:Not really for that</title>
	<author>Nursie</author>
	<datestamp>1247592240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>GPL protects your investment.</p><p>If you put work into GPL'd code you know that anyone that ports it or modifies it and distributes it then <b>must</b> give out their changes. It puts conditions on coders, sure, that they have to reciprocate if they want to use it.</p><p>If that says "less free" to you, that's fine. To me it says "this way free stuff gets better".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>GPL protects your investment.If you put work into GPL 'd code you know that anyone that ports it or modifies it and distributes it then must give out their changes .
It puts conditions on coders , sure , that they have to reciprocate if they want to use it.If that says " less free " to you , that 's fine .
To me it says " this way free stuff gets better " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>GPL protects your investment.If you put work into GPL'd code you know that anyone that ports it or modifies it and distributes it then must give out their changes.
It puts conditions on coders, sure, that they have to reciprocate if they want to use it.If that says "less free" to you, that's fine.
To me it says "this way free stuff gets better".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691659</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28694941</id>
	<title>Zed is Right</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247603220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I love this guy !!! No one should have a problem with GPL if you're if not willing to pay.  Accept the GPL , pay or write your own. Simple.  I don't blame him for being pissed about getting burned.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I love this guy ! ! !
No one should have a problem with GPL if you 're if not willing to pay .
Accept the GPL , pay or write your own .
Simple. I do n't blame him for being pissed about getting burned .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love this guy !!!
No one should have a problem with GPL if you're if not willing to pay.
Accept the GPL , pay or write your own.
Simple.  I don't blame him for being pissed about getting burned.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28692703</id>
	<title>Little to argue about</title>
	<author>steveha</author>
	<datestamp>1247593500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I read through the whole rant, and there is little to argue here.</p><p>He used GPL for a Python project?  Not that big a deal; his stuff won't ever be folded into the Python base distribution, but no one will seriously get upset.</p><p>He offers commercial licenses for companies that fear GPL?  Very sensible; not even RMS would object.</p><p>I enjoy his vigorous and clear writing, too.  "You guys are all giant pansies, even with a project like Lamson you're still all afwaid of big bad monsta SMTP."  Heh.</p><p>steveha</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I read through the whole rant , and there is little to argue here.He used GPL for a Python project ?
Not that big a deal ; his stuff wo n't ever be folded into the Python base distribution , but no one will seriously get upset.He offers commercial licenses for companies that fear GPL ?
Very sensible ; not even RMS would object.I enjoy his vigorous and clear writing , too .
" You guys are all giant pansies , even with a project like Lamson you 're still all afwaid of big bad monsta SMTP .
" Heh.steveha</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read through the whole rant, and there is little to argue here.He used GPL for a Python project?
Not that big a deal; his stuff won't ever be folded into the Python base distribution, but no one will seriously get upset.He offers commercial licenses for companies that fear GPL?
Very sensible; not even RMS would object.I enjoy his vigorous and clear writing, too.
"You guys are all giant pansies, even with a project like Lamson you're still all afwaid of big bad monsta SMTP.
"  Heh.steveha</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28694197</id>
	<title>Re:If your code...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247599500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Editors.  When you see something so blatant, please use [sic] after it so people will know it's not you doing <strong>the mangling the English language</strong>. [sic]</p></div><p>Muphry's Lawed!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Editors .
When you see something so blatant , please use [ sic ] after it so people will know it 's not you doing the mangling the English language .
[ sic ] Muphry 's Lawed !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Editors.
When you see something so blatant, please use [sic] after it so people will know it's not you doing the mangling the English language.
[sic]Muphry's Lawed!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691519</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28692467</id>
	<title>Re:Don't know, don't care</title>
	<author>CRiMSON</author>
	<datestamp>1247592420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pretty much, he sounds like a fucking tool. Type of person who thinks the sun rises cause he wills it. I've dealt with many of those types, And usually their ego far outweighs there actual skill.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pretty much , he sounds like a fucking tool .
Type of person who thinks the sun rises cause he wills it .
I 've dealt with many of those types , And usually their ego far outweighs there actual skill .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pretty much, he sounds like a fucking tool.
Type of person who thinks the sun rises cause he wills it.
I've dealt with many of those types, And usually their ego far outweighs there actual skill.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691175</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691089</id>
	<title>Re:Awww, What Happened to Badass Zed?</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1247586420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You forgot to repeatedly mention, and link to, his new project.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You forgot to repeatedly mention , and link to , his new project .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You forgot to repeatedly mention, and link to, his new project.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28690911</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28692299</id>
	<title>Re:"I Dont Want To Be Ignored Again" he says.</title>
	<author>maxwell demon</author>
	<datestamp>1247591760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>He says: 'I Dont Want To Be Ignored Again'.</p></div></blockquote><p>And he was successful: He got a Slashdot story.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>He says : 'I Dont Want To Be Ignored Again'.And he was successful : He got a Slashdot story .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He says: 'I Dont Want To Be Ignored Again'.And he was successful: He got a Slashdot story.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691811</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28692819</id>
	<title>Re:Not really for that</title>
	<author>Tubal-Cain</author>
	<datestamp>1247593860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>...I'll try to make an unorthodox argument there, anyway.</p><p>IMHO, both GPL-like and BSD-like licenses protect the freedom equally. The question is, whose freedom it is. Roughly speaking, GPL protects the freedoms of users by restricting the coders, while BSD protects the freedom of the coders, which might result in restricting the rights of the users...</p></div><p>That viewpoint has been repeated ad nauseam in virtually every GPL-vs-BSD discussion I've seen.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...I 'll try to make an unorthodox argument there , anyway.IMHO , both GPL-like and BSD-like licenses protect the freedom equally .
The question is , whose freedom it is .
Roughly speaking , GPL protects the freedoms of users by restricting the coders , while BSD protects the freedom of the coders , which might result in restricting the rights of the users...That viewpoint has been repeated ad nauseam in virtually every GPL-vs-BSD discussion I 've seen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...I'll try to make an unorthodox argument there, anyway.IMHO, both GPL-like and BSD-like licenses protect the freedom equally.
The question is, whose freedom it is.
Roughly speaking, GPL protects the freedoms of users by restricting the coders, while BSD protects the freedom of the coders, which might result in restricting the rights of the users...That viewpoint has been repeated ad nauseam in virtually every GPL-vs-BSD discussion I've seen.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691659</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691157</id>
	<title>Nobody hired you?</title>
	<author>winkydink</author>
	<datestamp>1247586900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Have you ever stopped to think that if you have fantastic technical skills and nobody will hire you, perhaps it isn't your technical skills that need work?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you ever stopped to think that if you have fantastic technical skills and nobody will hire you , perhaps it is n't your technical skills that need work ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you ever stopped to think that if you have fantastic technical skills and nobody will hire you, perhaps it isn't your technical skills that need work?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28690911</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28694827</id>
	<title>What an asshat</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247602620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What an asshat. Slowris is defeatable by setting a 5 second request timeout (down from the ridiculously high 8+ minute default). It took me all of 1.5 minutes to figure it out after reading (and confirming) how slowris works, the entirety of which was spent googling apache documentation for the directive that controls the request timeout. Wow that took genius! The fact that Zed coded up a solution before reading the apache docs is telling.</p><p>I'm just sayin'</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What an asshat .
Slowris is defeatable by setting a 5 second request timeout ( down from the ridiculously high 8 + minute default ) .
It took me all of 1.5 minutes to figure it out after reading ( and confirming ) how slowris works , the entirety of which was spent googling apache documentation for the directive that controls the request timeout .
Wow that took genius !
The fact that Zed coded up a solution before reading the apache docs is telling.I 'm just sayin'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What an asshat.
Slowris is defeatable by setting a 5 second request timeout (down from the ridiculously high 8+ minute default).
It took me all of 1.5 minutes to figure it out after reading (and confirming) how slowris works, the entirety of which was spent googling apache documentation for the directive that controls the request timeout.
Wow that took genius!
The fact that Zed coded up a solution before reading the apache docs is telling.I'm just sayin'</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28692229</id>
	<title>My Philosophy on Corporations Paying</title>
	<author>strimpster</author>
	<datestamp>1247591520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Never... ever suggest they don't have to pay you. What they pay for they'll value. What they get for free they'll take for granted and then demand as a right. Hold them up for all the market will bear.</p></div><p> <strong>Lois McMaster Bujold</strong></p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Never... ever suggest they do n't have to pay you .
What they pay for they 'll value .
What they get for free they 'll take for granted and then demand as a right .
Hold them up for all the market will bear .
Lois McMaster Bujold</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Never... ever suggest they don't have to pay you.
What they pay for they'll value.
What they get for free they'll take for granted and then demand as a right.
Hold them up for all the market will bear.
Lois McMaster Bujold
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691865</id>
	<title>I got yer back Zed</title>
	<author>molotovjester</author>
	<datestamp>1247589840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey Zed -<br>I whole heartedly agree.<br>I think that the problem is bigger than the open source community. It has a lot to do with today's sense of entitlement that the internet has created.<br>Today's kids grew up watching their older siblings and parents downloading "free" software and music without understanding the implications of it.</p><p>Mod me down for my libertarian views, but not for my desire to earn my living through my own work and not through the work of others.</p><p>MJ</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey Zed -I whole heartedly agree.I think that the problem is bigger than the open source community .
It has a lot to do with today 's sense of entitlement that the internet has created.Today 's kids grew up watching their older siblings and parents downloading " free " software and music without understanding the implications of it.Mod me down for my libertarian views , but not for my desire to earn my living through my own work and not through the work of others.MJ</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey Zed -I whole heartedly agree.I think that the problem is bigger than the open source community.
It has a lot to do with today's sense of entitlement that the internet has created.Today's kids grew up watching their older siblings and parents downloading "free" software and music without understanding the implications of it.Mod me down for my libertarian views, but not for my desire to earn my living through my own work and not through the work of others.MJ</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28694149</id>
	<title>I'd use the GPL</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1247599320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For the same reasons Zed does, but without all the ranting.  I just looked at licenses today and was comparing the Microsoft Public License to the GPL, and the MSPL lets consumers of source code do whatever they want with it, including make tons of money on proprietary apps.  I'm thinking, if someone really wanted to do that, which, in my case is doubtful, they could email me and ask, and we could talk about a separate license for them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For the same reasons Zed does , but without all the ranting .
I just looked at licenses today and was comparing the Microsoft Public License to the GPL , and the MSPL lets consumers of source code do whatever they want with it , including make tons of money on proprietary apps .
I 'm thinking , if someone really wanted to do that , which , in my case is doubtful , they could email me and ask , and we could talk about a separate license for them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For the same reasons Zed does, but without all the ranting.
I just looked at licenses today and was comparing the Microsoft Public License to the GPL, and the MSPL lets consumers of source code do whatever they want with it, including make tons of money on proprietary apps.
I'm thinking, if someone really wanted to do that, which, in my case is doubtful, they could email me and ask, and we could talk about a separate license for them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28695021</id>
	<title>Ah, GPL won't help so much with earning $$$$$$$!</title>
	<author>itsybitsy</author>
	<datestamp>1247603820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i> You have the software, and it's GPLed, and as long as you're a rock solid open source project who releases their code you are free to use it and do what you want with it. I love open source, but companies? <b>Companies are going to have to pay from now on.</b> That's how economics works. If it's good enough for you to use, why then it's good enough for you to pay for it.</i></p><p>I don't see how the GPL will help you with corporations dude. They'll avoid paying you cashola by providing the updates (if any) that they make to the code per the terms of the GPL.</p><p>Unless you add new terms above and beyond the GPL it won't help you dude.</p><p>So while I applaud your attempt to be "recognized" for your work by forcing the rules of the communistic GPL upon everyone it won't get the job of getting you the cashola done. If your lame email program is any good you might get a good reputation and that might get you work but that's quite indirect.</p><p>Now if you're planning on using the TOUGH rules of the GPL to be a carrot to businesses by saying that ONLY THEY will get the license where they don't have to follow the GPL but your extraspecial spicy commercial license fine, but they - as noted above - can always avoid that by using the GPL'd version and putting a Free Market License Condom around your viral GPL and then do what the heck they want with it (using it that is with minimal updates).</p><p>"Open source to open source, corporation to corporation" is a nice motto and I actually like it myself, but the GPL won't get you there dude. What would is a new license that is quite specific about your terms of doing business.</p><p>You seem pissed off, Zed, that when you put software out under permissive licenses that people used it. Well that's what is supposed to happen. It's clear that you don't have the free license spirit in you at all. It seems that you value recognition which is fine and part of your psychological makeup.</p><p>There is a movie with the title, "Born Free", where "a real-life couple who raised an orphaned lion cub to adulthood, and released her into the wilds of Kenya" and wonder if they will ever see "their" lions again, will they return?</p><p>It seems, Zed, that in your case your code isn't born free but is born out of your mind with hooks back to you, born out of your mind with loads of restrictions. All fine. As you said it's your right. I'm glad that you are finding your stand to take with your software projects and making the choices that you think will lead you towards what you want. I just think that given what you wrote the GPL isn't going to provide the answers unless you change the GPL towards your own ends twisting it's tortured soul (the GPL) towards commercially required payments to you.</p><p>So with Zed software isn't Born Free but is born out of his mind bending the tortured GPL towards goals that it's Commune Dictator didn't provide for. All that is fine. It's your choice.</p><p>I'd simply have gone for a commercial license that is free for personal use and any BSD like license can be adapted for that, after all the foundation of all these licenses (except the Public Domain non license) is Copyright which Zed has over his sole works to do with entirely as he pleases.</p><p>Good luck running a muck of the commune dude. May your success bring you fortune and fame you so desire.</p><p>BSD isn't for control freaks, it's for the Born Free crowd!</p><p>GPL IS for control freaks of the Maoist bent. Total Control of all aspects of how your software is used.</p><p>Commercial is for people who want to make a living. Enjoy Life.</p><p>Public Domain is for those that don't want any restrictions at all and for those that want to be beyond the rules of society.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You have the software , and it 's GPLed , and as long as you 're a rock solid open source project who releases their code you are free to use it and do what you want with it .
I love open source , but companies ?
Companies are going to have to pay from now on .
That 's how economics works .
If it 's good enough for you to use , why then it 's good enough for you to pay for it.I do n't see how the GPL will help you with corporations dude .
They 'll avoid paying you cashola by providing the updates ( if any ) that they make to the code per the terms of the GPL.Unless you add new terms above and beyond the GPL it wo n't help you dude.So while I applaud your attempt to be " recognized " for your work by forcing the rules of the communistic GPL upon everyone it wo n't get the job of getting you the cashola done .
If your lame email program is any good you might get a good reputation and that might get you work but that 's quite indirect.Now if you 're planning on using the TOUGH rules of the GPL to be a carrot to businesses by saying that ONLY THEY will get the license where they do n't have to follow the GPL but your extraspecial spicy commercial license fine , but they - as noted above - can always avoid that by using the GPL 'd version and putting a Free Market License Condom around your viral GPL and then do what the heck they want with it ( using it that is with minimal updates ) .
" Open source to open source , corporation to corporation " is a nice motto and I actually like it myself , but the GPL wo n't get you there dude .
What would is a new license that is quite specific about your terms of doing business.You seem pissed off , Zed , that when you put software out under permissive licenses that people used it .
Well that 's what is supposed to happen .
It 's clear that you do n't have the free license spirit in you at all .
It seems that you value recognition which is fine and part of your psychological makeup.There is a movie with the title , " Born Free " , where " a real-life couple who raised an orphaned lion cub to adulthood , and released her into the wilds of Kenya " and wonder if they will ever see " their " lions again , will they return ? It seems , Zed , that in your case your code is n't born free but is born out of your mind with hooks back to you , born out of your mind with loads of restrictions .
All fine .
As you said it 's your right .
I 'm glad that you are finding your stand to take with your software projects and making the choices that you think will lead you towards what you want .
I just think that given what you wrote the GPL is n't going to provide the answers unless you change the GPL towards your own ends twisting it 's tortured soul ( the GPL ) towards commercially required payments to you.So with Zed software is n't Born Free but is born out of his mind bending the tortured GPL towards goals that it 's Commune Dictator did n't provide for .
All that is fine .
It 's your choice.I 'd simply have gone for a commercial license that is free for personal use and any BSD like license can be adapted for that , after all the foundation of all these licenses ( except the Public Domain non license ) is Copyright which Zed has over his sole works to do with entirely as he pleases.Good luck running a muck of the commune dude .
May your success bring you fortune and fame you so desire.BSD is n't for control freaks , it 's for the Born Free crowd ! GPL IS for control freaks of the Maoist bent .
Total Control of all aspects of how your software is used.Commercial is for people who want to make a living .
Enjoy Life.Public Domain is for those that do n't want any restrictions at all and for those that want to be beyond the rules of society .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> You have the software, and it's GPLed, and as long as you're a rock solid open source project who releases their code you are free to use it and do what you want with it.
I love open source, but companies?
Companies are going to have to pay from now on.
That's how economics works.
If it's good enough for you to use, why then it's good enough for you to pay for it.I don't see how the GPL will help you with corporations dude.
They'll avoid paying you cashola by providing the updates (if any) that they make to the code per the terms of the GPL.Unless you add new terms above and beyond the GPL it won't help you dude.So while I applaud your attempt to be "recognized" for your work by forcing the rules of the communistic GPL upon everyone it won't get the job of getting you the cashola done.
If your lame email program is any good you might get a good reputation and that might get you work but that's quite indirect.Now if you're planning on using the TOUGH rules of the GPL to be a carrot to businesses by saying that ONLY THEY will get the license where they don't have to follow the GPL but your extraspecial spicy commercial license fine, but they - as noted above - can always avoid that by using the GPL'd version and putting a Free Market License Condom around your viral GPL and then do what the heck they want with it (using it that is with minimal updates).
"Open source to open source, corporation to corporation" is a nice motto and I actually like it myself, but the GPL won't get you there dude.
What would is a new license that is quite specific about your terms of doing business.You seem pissed off, Zed, that when you put software out under permissive licenses that people used it.
Well that's what is supposed to happen.
It's clear that you don't have the free license spirit in you at all.
It seems that you value recognition which is fine and part of your psychological makeup.There is a movie with the title, "Born Free", where "a real-life couple who raised an orphaned lion cub to adulthood, and released her into the wilds of Kenya" and wonder if they will ever see "their" lions again, will they return?It seems, Zed, that in your case your code isn't born free but is born out of your mind with hooks back to you, born out of your mind with loads of restrictions.
All fine.
As you said it's your right.
I'm glad that you are finding your stand to take with your software projects and making the choices that you think will lead you towards what you want.
I just think that given what you wrote the GPL isn't going to provide the answers unless you change the GPL towards your own ends twisting it's tortured soul (the GPL) towards commercially required payments to you.So with Zed software isn't Born Free but is born out of his mind bending the tortured GPL towards goals that it's Commune Dictator didn't provide for.
All that is fine.
It's your choice.I'd simply have gone for a commercial license that is free for personal use and any BSD like license can be adapted for that, after all the foundation of all these licenses (except the Public Domain non license) is Copyright which Zed has over his sole works to do with entirely as he pleases.Good luck running a muck of the commune dude.
May your success bring you fortune and fame you so desire.BSD isn't for control freaks, it's for the Born Free crowd!GPL IS for control freaks of the Maoist bent.
Total Control of all aspects of how your software is used.Commercial is for people who want to make a living.
Enjoy Life.Public Domain is for those that don't want any restrictions at all and for those that want to be beyond the rules of society.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691073</id>
	<title>I do!</title>
	<author>filesiteguy</author>
	<datestamp>1247586360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Every chance I get to tell my manager that my team has used an OSS product for one thing or another, I mention it.  I'm trying to get him to stop usign the term, "freeware" or "shareware" which implies something less than ideal.<br><br>Sure, we use multi-thousand dollar products for development, but there's always some tool, some image, some utility, some code that is just better and licensed under GPL or CL.<br><br>Like I always say, "why improvise when you can plagiarize."</htmltext>
<tokenext>Every chance I get to tell my manager that my team has used an OSS product for one thing or another , I mention it .
I 'm trying to get him to stop usign the term , " freeware " or " shareware " which implies something less than ideal.Sure , we use multi-thousand dollar products for development , but there 's always some tool , some image , some utility , some code that is just better and licensed under GPL or CL.Like I always say , " why improvise when you can plagiarize .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every chance I get to tell my manager that my team has used an OSS product for one thing or another, I mention it.
I'm trying to get him to stop usign the term, "freeware" or "shareware" which implies something less than ideal.Sure, we use multi-thousand dollar products for development, but there's always some tool, some image, some utility, some code that is just better and licensed under GPL or CL.Like I always say, "why improvise when you can plagiarize.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28694903</id>
	<title>Re:Reason 7</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247602980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The way the GPL has turned out is:</p><p>You use a product written by people who didn't foresee what you were going to use it for and they end up integrating changes to benefit someone whose use they didn't foresee.   By keeping the code free over the long haul you get fascinating cooperation at the code level.</p></div><p>Unless the person that wants to use your code is writing a proprietary program, in which case they can't use your GPL code at all because linking it in would force them to open-source their product. (Not as much of an issue with the LGPL, and not an issue at all with BSD/MIT/X11.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The way the GPL has turned out is : You use a product written by people who did n't foresee what you were going to use it for and they end up integrating changes to benefit someone whose use they did n't foresee .
By keeping the code free over the long haul you get fascinating cooperation at the code level.Unless the person that wants to use your code is writing a proprietary program , in which case they ca n't use your GPL code at all because linking it in would force them to open-source their product .
( Not as much of an issue with the LGPL , and not an issue at all with BSD/MIT/X11 .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The way the GPL has turned out is:You use a product written by people who didn't foresee what you were going to use it for and they end up integrating changes to benefit someone whose use they didn't foresee.
By keeping the code free over the long haul you get fascinating cooperation at the code level.Unless the person that wants to use your code is writing a proprietary program, in which case they can't use your GPL code at all because linking it in would force them to open-source their product.
(Not as much of an issue with the LGPL, and not an issue at all with BSD/MIT/X11.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691259</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28695431</id>
	<title>GPL protects your investment.</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1247562480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>BSD protects my investment.  If I invest tyme in programming and use a BSD license I can close my source code preventing others from taking it and giving it away.  I can not prevent that with the GPL.</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>BSD protects my investment .
If I invest tyme in programming and use a BSD license I can close my source code preventing others from taking it and giving it away .
I can not prevent that with the GPL .
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BSD protects my investment.
If I invest tyme in programming and use a BSD license I can close my source code preventing others from taking it and giving it away.
I can not prevent that with the GPL.
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28692443</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28702113</id>
	<title>Dual-Licensing vs. Dual-Pricing</title>
	<author>Mandrel</author>
	<datestamp>1247665080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, don't dual-license. Just set different prices for different types and sizes of users, and attract contributors by allowing them to share in package income.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , do n't dual-license .
Just set different prices for different types and sizes of users , and attract contributors by allowing them to share in package income .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, don't dual-license.
Just set different prices for different types and sizes of users, and attract contributors by allowing them to share in package income.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691513</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691519</id>
	<title>If your code...</title>
	<author>smooth wombat</author>
	<datestamp>1247588520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>is anything like your writing capability, it's no wonder people say you can't code.

<br> <br>

<em>I've ran into a vast majority of you who constantly try to say that I can't code as a way of covering your ass.</em>

<br> <br>

Editors.  When you see something so blatant, please use [sic] after it so people will know it's not you doing the mangling the English language.</htmltext>
<tokenext>is anything like your writing capability , it 's no wonder people say you ca n't code .
I 've ran into a vast majority of you who constantly try to say that I ca n't code as a way of covering your ass .
Editors. When you see something so blatant , please use [ sic ] after it so people will know it 's not you doing the mangling the English language .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is anything like your writing capability, it's no wonder people say you can't code.
I've ran into a vast majority of you who constantly try to say that I can't code as a way of covering your ass.
Editors.  When you see something so blatant, please use [sic] after it so people will know it's not you doing the mangling the English language.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28694597</id>
	<title>Re:Awww, What Happened to Badass Zed?</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1247601420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>He is right about Rails developers. They're all web design fairies who think they can program. They'll dump Rails like a steaming load of shit once something new and shiny comes along.</htmltext>
<tokenext>He is right about Rails developers .
They 're all web design fairies who think they can program .
They 'll dump Rails like a steaming load of shit once something new and shiny comes along .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He is right about Rails developers.
They're all web design fairies who think they can program.
They'll dump Rails like a steaming load of shit once something new and shiny comes along.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28690911</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28695971</id>
	<title>Re:Not really for that</title>
	<author>david\_thornley</author>
	<datestamp>1247564640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Not to mention the different ideas of freedom held by Richard Stallman and Linus Torvalds.
</p><p>
Consider the use of Linux in the Tivo.  Linus thought that was just fine:  somebody else was using Linux, and he'd get copies of all the changes they made, so he could incorporate anything good.  rms thought that was bad, since he couldn't reprogram a Tivo, and that's one of the things that got into GPLv3.
</p><p>
So, we have the BSD, Linux, and GPLv3 ideas of freedom to argue about.  We can keep this holy war going forever!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to mention the different ideas of freedom held by Richard Stallman and Linus Torvalds .
Consider the use of Linux in the Tivo .
Linus thought that was just fine : somebody else was using Linux , and he 'd get copies of all the changes they made , so he could incorporate anything good .
rms thought that was bad , since he could n't reprogram a Tivo , and that 's one of the things that got into GPLv3 .
So , we have the BSD , Linux , and GPLv3 ideas of freedom to argue about .
We can keep this holy war going forever !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Not to mention the different ideas of freedom held by Richard Stallman and Linus Torvalds.
Consider the use of Linux in the Tivo.
Linus thought that was just fine:  somebody else was using Linux, and he'd get copies of all the changes they made, so he could incorporate anything good.
rms thought that was bad, since he couldn't reprogram a Tivo, and that's one of the things that got into GPLv3.
So, we have the BSD, Linux, and GPLv3 ideas of freedom to argue about.
We can keep this holy war going forever!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691659</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691277</id>
	<title>Whining</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247587380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh God! I hate whining bastards!  They just WHINE WHINE WHINE!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh God !
I hate whining bastards !
They just WHINE WHINE WHINE !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh God!
I hate whining bastards!
They just WHINE WHINE WHINE!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28698727</id>
	<title>Re:Not really for that</title>
	<author>extrasolar</author>
	<datestamp>1247580360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And yet, that is the proprietary mindset: providers versus consumers, is just another terminology for developers versus users.</p><p>The key insight into applications like emacs and firefox, is that users are developers too.  You shouldn't distinguish between the two when you consider what "freedom" people should have.  Yes, someone should be allowed to write their own extension to firefox, and distribute it widely, if that is their choice.  The same is true of emacs.  People should be allowed to have their buggy software fixed, even if the provider expresses his right to refuse to do so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And yet , that is the proprietary mindset : providers versus consumers , is just another terminology for developers versus users.The key insight into applications like emacs and firefox , is that users are developers too .
You should n't distinguish between the two when you consider what " freedom " people should have .
Yes , someone should be allowed to write their own extension to firefox , and distribute it widely , if that is their choice .
The same is true of emacs .
People should be allowed to have their buggy software fixed , even if the provider expresses his right to refuse to do so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And yet, that is the proprietary mindset: providers versus consumers, is just another terminology for developers versus users.The key insight into applications like emacs and firefox, is that users are developers too.
You shouldn't distinguish between the two when you consider what "freedom" people should have.
Yes, someone should be allowed to write their own extension to firefox, and distribute it widely, if that is their choice.
The same is true of emacs.
People should be allowed to have their buggy software fixed, even if the provider expresses his right to refuse to do so.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691659</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28692769</id>
	<title>Re:Some good advice</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247593740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Complaining about features is one thing... but bugs? If you quit supporting/coding on an open source project because your supporters are making bug reports... you're doing it wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Complaining about features is one thing... but bugs ?
If you quit supporting/coding on an open source project because your supporters are making bug reports... you 're doing it wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Complaining about features is one thing... but bugs?
If you quit supporting/coding on an open source project because your supporters are making bug reports... you're doing it wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691331</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691205</id>
	<title>Re:agreed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247587080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I could not agree more...</p><p>The BSD, MIT licenses (even if more open) are for mugs who end up having their code "stolen" !<br>By this I mean that some half-witted asshat will grab the source tree, make some minor changes to it and then resell it as his own work.</p></div><p>FUD less. Both the MIT and BSD licenses are "Attribution required" licenses. If the guys is passing it off as his own work and not giving you credit (as opposed to money), he's breaking the license.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I could not agree more...The BSD , MIT licenses ( even if more open ) are for mugs who end up having their code " stolen " ! By this I mean that some half-witted asshat will grab the source tree , make some minor changes to it and then resell it as his own work.FUD less .
Both the MIT and BSD licenses are " Attribution required " licenses .
If the guys is passing it off as his own work and not giving you credit ( as opposed to money ) , he 's breaking the license .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I could not agree more...The BSD, MIT licenses (even if more open) are for mugs who end up having their code "stolen" !By this I mean that some half-witted asshat will grab the source tree, make some minor changes to it and then resell it as his own work.FUD less.
Both the MIT and BSD licenses are "Attribution required" licenses.
If the guys is passing it off as his own work and not giving you credit (as opposed to money), he's breaking the license.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691035</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691271</id>
	<title>The GPL doesn't say that!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247587380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>After Mongrel I almost need companies to have to admit they use my software. I would actually rather nobody use my software than be in a situation where everyone is using my gear and nobody is admitting it.</i></p><p><i>Or worse, everyone is using it, and at the same time saying I can't code.</i></p><p>If you're worried about that, you should use the "noxious" four clause BSDL, not the GPL, because unless someone distributed the code AND people look at the copyright notice, nobody will know or care. Even the new GPL-friendly BSDL does as much to protect you from people "not admitting" they use your software as the GPL. Heck, the BSDL even protects you from GPL projects hijacking your code.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>Heck, most of those reasons seem to be based on a misunderstanding of the GPL except for the one where you get to dual-license your GPL code and make money from corporations who want a special deal. Which is perfectly reasonable and lots of people are doing it, but hiding it in a bunch of bogus verbiage about attribution?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After Mongrel I almost need companies to have to admit they use my software .
I would actually rather nobody use my software than be in a situation where everyone is using my gear and nobody is admitting it.Or worse , everyone is using it , and at the same time saying I ca n't code.If you 're worried about that , you should use the " noxious " four clause BSDL , not the GPL , because unless someone distributed the code AND people look at the copyright notice , nobody will know or care .
Even the new GPL-friendly BSDL does as much to protect you from people " not admitting " they use your software as the GPL .
Heck , the BSDL even protects you from GPL projects hijacking your code .
: ) Heck , most of those reasons seem to be based on a misunderstanding of the GPL except for the one where you get to dual-license your GPL code and make money from corporations who want a special deal .
Which is perfectly reasonable and lots of people are doing it , but hiding it in a bunch of bogus verbiage about attribution ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After Mongrel I almost need companies to have to admit they use my software.
I would actually rather nobody use my software than be in a situation where everyone is using my gear and nobody is admitting it.Or worse, everyone is using it, and at the same time saying I can't code.If you're worried about that, you should use the "noxious" four clause BSDL, not the GPL, because unless someone distributed the code AND people look at the copyright notice, nobody will know or care.
Even the new GPL-friendly BSDL does as much to protect you from people "not admitting" they use your software as the GPL.
Heck, the BSDL even protects you from GPL projects hijacking your code.
:)Heck, most of those reasons seem to be based on a misunderstanding of the GPL except for the one where you get to dual-license your GPL code and make money from corporations who want a special deal.
Which is perfectly reasonable and lots of people are doing it, but hiding it in a bunch of bogus verbiage about attribution?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28698823</id>
	<title>Re:If your code...</title>
	<author>Larryish</author>
	<datestamp>1247581260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is WRITING ABILITY.</p><p>It is not WRITING CAPABILITY.</p><p>You just got served, Mr. Mangling de English Language.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is WRITING ABILITY.It is not WRITING CAPABILITY.You just got served , Mr. Mangling de English Language .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is WRITING ABILITY.It is not WRITING CAPABILITY.You just got served, Mr. Mangling de English Language.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691519</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28693221</id>
	<title>Re:Whining</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247595480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok serious guys, in what world is "Oh God! I hate whining bastards! They just WHINE WHINE WHINE!" insightful?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok serious guys , in what world is " Oh God !
I hate whining bastards !
They just WHINE WHINE WHINE !
" insightful ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok serious guys, in what world is "Oh God!
I hate whining bastards!
They just WHINE WHINE WHINE!
" insightful?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691277</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691021</id>
	<title>Re:Awww, What Happened to Badass Zed?</title>
	<author>RiotingPacifist</author>
	<datestamp>1247586180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Zed's dead baby, Zed's dead.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Zed 's dead baby , Zed 's dead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Zed's dead baby, Zed's dead.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28690911</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28692017</id>
	<title>Do I tell my boss?</title>
	<author>Imagix</author>
	<datestamp>1247590560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Of course!  To not tell opens the company up to various potential lawsuits.  That does however mean that as soon as we hear "GPL", that project gets dropped.  LGPL gets consideration though.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course !
To not tell opens the company up to various potential lawsuits .
That does however mean that as soon as we hear " GPL " , that project gets dropped .
LGPL gets consideration though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course!
To not tell opens the company up to various potential lawsuits.
That does however mean that as soon as we hear "GPL", that project gets dropped.
LGPL gets consideration though.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28692843</id>
	<title>Incompatible with other OSS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247593980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>One thing that seems to always be left out of these discussions is that the GPL is <b>incompatible</b> with many sincere open-source licenses, including some that are approved by the Open Source Initiative (http://www.opensource.org). Consider the NASA Open Source Agreement, under which NASA contributes some pretty good open-source code such as <a href="http://ti.arc.nasa.gov/project/nasa-vision-workbench/" title="nasa.gov" rel="nofollow">http://ti.arc.nasa.gov/project/nasa-vision-workbench/</a> [nasa.gov] -- this license is incompatible with the GPL because it requires all contributions to be the contributor's original creation, but it is a solid OSI-approved license.
<br>
<br>
I understand why the FSF takes a hard line with regard to linking GPL code with code that is licensed under GPL-incompatible OSS licenses -- linking does technically create a derivative work, the LGPL is also available, and the FSF has a long-term political agenda (with which I do not entirely disagree).
<br>
<br>
What bothers me is that some OSS developers who claim to use the GPL to inhibit its use by companies (in order to sell licenses) are quite myopic in their views of those who are contributing to the OSS community and thus are deserving of free -- in both senses of the word -- usage of their code.
<br>
<br>
True story: I worked for a while on an open-source NASA project. I needed to add some new features, and the best fit for providing some of the back-end functionality was a GPL-licensed library. I contacted the author of this library about adding a linking exception to its license (so that it could be linked with NASA OSA-licensed code), assuming that he would be honored that NASA was interested in his library, and happy that another open-source project would be promoting his library by requiring it as a dependency (for some optional features). To my great surprise, the author refused unless NASA would pay. In the end, everybody lost -- my project used an inferior library because it was LGPL, and the GPL library got no new users and no free publicity from being linked from my project's webpage.</htmltext>
<tokenext>One thing that seems to always be left out of these discussions is that the GPL is incompatible with many sincere open-source licenses , including some that are approved by the Open Source Initiative ( http : //www.opensource.org ) .
Consider the NASA Open Source Agreement , under which NASA contributes some pretty good open-source code such as http : //ti.arc.nasa.gov/project/nasa-vision-workbench/ [ nasa.gov ] -- this license is incompatible with the GPL because it requires all contributions to be the contributor 's original creation , but it is a solid OSI-approved license .
I understand why the FSF takes a hard line with regard to linking GPL code with code that is licensed under GPL-incompatible OSS licenses -- linking does technically create a derivative work , the LGPL is also available , and the FSF has a long-term political agenda ( with which I do not entirely disagree ) .
What bothers me is that some OSS developers who claim to use the GPL to inhibit its use by companies ( in order to sell licenses ) are quite myopic in their views of those who are contributing to the OSS community and thus are deserving of free -- in both senses of the word -- usage of their code .
True story : I worked for a while on an open-source NASA project .
I needed to add some new features , and the best fit for providing some of the back-end functionality was a GPL-licensed library .
I contacted the author of this library about adding a linking exception to its license ( so that it could be linked with NASA OSA-licensed code ) , assuming that he would be honored that NASA was interested in his library , and happy that another open-source project would be promoting his library by requiring it as a dependency ( for some optional features ) .
To my great surprise , the author refused unless NASA would pay .
In the end , everybody lost -- my project used an inferior library because it was LGPL , and the GPL library got no new users and no free publicity from being linked from my project 's webpage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One thing that seems to always be left out of these discussions is that the GPL is incompatible with many sincere open-source licenses, including some that are approved by the Open Source Initiative (http://www.opensource.org).
Consider the NASA Open Source Agreement, under which NASA contributes some pretty good open-source code such as http://ti.arc.nasa.gov/project/nasa-vision-workbench/ [nasa.gov] -- this license is incompatible with the GPL because it requires all contributions to be the contributor's original creation, but it is a solid OSI-approved license.
I understand why the FSF takes a hard line with regard to linking GPL code with code that is licensed under GPL-incompatible OSS licenses -- linking does technically create a derivative work, the LGPL is also available, and the FSF has a long-term political agenda (with which I do not entirely disagree).
What bothers me is that some OSS developers who claim to use the GPL to inhibit its use by companies (in order to sell licenses) are quite myopic in their views of those who are contributing to the OSS community and thus are deserving of free -- in both senses of the word -- usage of their code.
True story: I worked for a while on an open-source NASA project.
I needed to add some new features, and the best fit for providing some of the back-end functionality was a GPL-licensed library.
I contacted the author of this library about adding a linking exception to its license (so that it could be linked with NASA OSA-licensed code), assuming that he would be honored that NASA was interested in his library, and happy that another open-source project would be promoting his library by requiring it as a dependency (for some optional features).
To my great surprise, the author refused unless NASA would pay.
In the end, everybody lost -- my project used an inferior library because it was LGPL, and the GPL library got no new users and no free publicity from being linked from my project's webpage.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28707841</id>
	<title>Re:Not really for that</title>
	<author>anyGould</author>
	<datestamp>1247650020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seems fair to me.
<p>
I write Nifty 1.0 - I release it as GPL. You can
<br>
(a) use it under GPL, which means you have to contribute your code back under the same terms (you pay me for my code with your code.)
<br>(b) you call me up, and arrange to pay me in some other fashion (cash, shares, goodwill, whatever we agree to). I license you the code under terms we find mutually agreeable.
</p><p>

This is just me, but I see GPL as a guarantee that I get "paid" for my work. If you're using it for non-profit/GPL freeness, then you're paying me back in code I can use. If you're using my code as part of your 3-step plan to Profit, then I deserve some cut. (If my contribution isn't big enough to warrant a cut, it must be simple to write your own, yes?).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems fair to me .
I write Nifty 1.0 - I release it as GPL .
You can ( a ) use it under GPL , which means you have to contribute your code back under the same terms ( you pay me for my code with your code .
) ( b ) you call me up , and arrange to pay me in some other fashion ( cash , shares , goodwill , whatever we agree to ) .
I license you the code under terms we find mutually agreeable .
This is just me , but I see GPL as a guarantee that I get " paid " for my work .
If you 're using it for non-profit/GPL freeness , then you 're paying me back in code I can use .
If you 're using my code as part of your 3-step plan to Profit , then I deserve some cut .
( If my contribution is n't big enough to warrant a cut , it must be simple to write your own , yes ?
) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems fair to me.
I write Nifty 1.0 - I release it as GPL.
You can

(a) use it under GPL, which means you have to contribute your code back under the same terms (you pay me for my code with your code.
)
(b) you call me up, and arrange to pay me in some other fashion (cash, shares, goodwill, whatever we agree to).
I license you the code under terms we find mutually agreeable.
This is just me, but I see GPL as a guarantee that I get "paid" for my work.
If you're using it for non-profit/GPL freeness, then you're paying me back in code I can use.
If you're using my code as part of your 3-step plan to Profit, then I deserve some cut.
(If my contribution isn't big enough to warrant a cut, it must be simple to write your own, yes?
).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691855</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28692671</id>
	<title>Re:Nobody hired you?</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1247593320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Computer Courage is an amazing thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Computer Courage is an amazing thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Computer Courage is an amazing thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691787</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28692959</id>
	<title>Re:OSS 101</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1247594460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If you don't dual license your OSS, then you are not interested in making money.</p></div> </blockquote><p>At least, you aren't interested in making money off of software <i>licenses</i> for things you release as OSS. Of course, if you have release software as OSS, you might as well give up on doing that anyway.</p><p>But big businesses want accountable support; that may typically come <i>with</i> enterprise software licenses, but if it is separate they'll pay for that even if the license is free. Supporting software costs money if done in house, too, and it usually isn't the businesses core competency, and most large businesses would prefer to outsource to someone for whom it is their core competency.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you do n't dual license your OSS , then you are not interested in making money .
At least , you are n't interested in making money off of software licenses for things you release as OSS .
Of course , if you have release software as OSS , you might as well give up on doing that anyway.But big businesses want accountable support ; that may typically come with enterprise software licenses , but if it is separate they 'll pay for that even if the license is free .
Supporting software costs money if done in house , too , and it usually is n't the businesses core competency , and most large businesses would prefer to outsource to someone for whom it is their core competency .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you don't dual license your OSS, then you are not interested in making money.
At least, you aren't interested in making money off of software licenses for things you release as OSS.
Of course, if you have release software as OSS, you might as well give up on doing that anyway.But big businesses want accountable support; that may typically come with enterprise software licenses, but if it is separate they'll pay for that even if the license is free.
Supporting software costs money if done in house, too, and it usually isn't the businesses core competency, and most large businesses would prefer to outsource to someone for whom it is their core competency.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691569</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28693791</id>
	<title>Re:Not really for that</title>
	<author>mellon</author>
	<datestamp>1247597760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you mean having your code used unknowingly by as many people as possible, without them having the ability to customize it, sure.   Personally, I actually care that people be able to customize the code, even though very few choose to do so.   To me, the right to tinker is *much* more important than the right to consume.   And unfortunately the BSD license does not preserve the right to tinker.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you mean having your code used unknowingly by as many people as possible , without them having the ability to customize it , sure .
Personally , I actually care that people be able to customize the code , even though very few choose to do so .
To me , the right to tinker is * much * more important than the right to consume .
And unfortunately the BSD license does not preserve the right to tinker .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you mean having your code used unknowingly by as many people as possible, without them having the ability to customize it, sure.
Personally, I actually care that people be able to customize the code, even though very few choose to do so.
To me, the right to tinker is *much* more important than the right to consume.
And unfortunately the BSD license does not preserve the right to tinker.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28690997</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28690911</id>
	<title>Awww, What Happened  to Badass Zed?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247585760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>

Zed, man, we gotta talk.  Your site has changed <a href="http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/01/02/1811218" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">since Slashdot last led me to it</a> [slashdot.org].  Back then I thought it was black and had huge scrawled letters over the top of it that said "Zed's So Fucking Awesome!"  So what happened to ZSFA?  Also, now when I click that link you seemed to have <a href="http://www.zedshaw.com/rants/rails\_is\_a\_ghetto.html" title="zedshaw.com" rel="nofollow">replaced</a> [zedshaw.com] your badass rant against people with an apologetic explanation of your "parody" and you won't grant poermission to publish it?  That's a shame <a href="http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=403840&amp;cid=21887276" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">I quoted the best part</a> [slashdot.org] on the Slashdot story.  <br> <br>

What happened to you, man?  You used to be cool!  Where's all the in your face swearing and abrasiveness?  You used to be hardcore!  Your 'music' is so alive with raw power but now your site is somehow more respectable.  <br> <br>

And now in your latest rant you're complaining that by writing Mongrel you weren't given a consulting job?  You weren't handed a company to destroy?  Well, way to stick it to the man, my friend.  You seem to enjoy bashing the hell out of developers trying to get a job done for not standing up and screaming "Zed's So Fucking Awesome" but now you are complaining that didn't win you a job.  <br> <br>

You, are a great software developer.  Much better than I in all probability.  You are a complete and utter asshole in nearly every other respect (yes, even in your music) and it should come as no surprise that you cannot land a job on a team.  I would not pay money for your projects since I don't use them but I will send you $20 to stay in a hole, write software and restrict yourself from communicating with the outside world.  Really, the world would be a better place.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Zed , man , we got ta talk .
Your site has changed since Slashdot last led me to it [ slashdot.org ] .
Back then I thought it was black and had huge scrawled letters over the top of it that said " Zed 's So Fucking Awesome !
" So what happened to ZSFA ?
Also , now when I click that link you seemed to have replaced [ zedshaw.com ] your badass rant against people with an apologetic explanation of your " parody " and you wo n't grant poermission to publish it ?
That 's a shame I quoted the best part [ slashdot.org ] on the Slashdot story .
What happened to you , man ?
You used to be cool !
Where 's all the in your face swearing and abrasiveness ?
You used to be hardcore !
Your 'music ' is so alive with raw power but now your site is somehow more respectable .
And now in your latest rant you 're complaining that by writing Mongrel you were n't given a consulting job ?
You were n't handed a company to destroy ?
Well , way to stick it to the man , my friend .
You seem to enjoy bashing the hell out of developers trying to get a job done for not standing up and screaming " Zed 's So Fucking Awesome " but now you are complaining that did n't win you a job .
You , are a great software developer .
Much better than I in all probability .
You are a complete and utter asshole in nearly every other respect ( yes , even in your music ) and it should come as no surprise that you can not land a job on a team .
I would not pay money for your projects since I do n't use them but I will send you $ 20 to stay in a hole , write software and restrict yourself from communicating with the outside world .
Really , the world would be a better place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>

Zed, man, we gotta talk.
Your site has changed since Slashdot last led me to it [slashdot.org].
Back then I thought it was black and had huge scrawled letters over the top of it that said "Zed's So Fucking Awesome!
"  So what happened to ZSFA?
Also, now when I click that link you seemed to have replaced [zedshaw.com] your badass rant against people with an apologetic explanation of your "parody" and you won't grant poermission to publish it?
That's a shame I quoted the best part [slashdot.org] on the Slashdot story.
What happened to you, man?
You used to be cool!
Where's all the in your face swearing and abrasiveness?
You used to be hardcore!
Your 'music' is so alive with raw power but now your site is somehow more respectable.
And now in your latest rant you're complaining that by writing Mongrel you weren't given a consulting job?
You weren't handed a company to destroy?
Well, way to stick it to the man, my friend.
You seem to enjoy bashing the hell out of developers trying to get a job done for not standing up and screaming "Zed's So Fucking Awesome" but now you are complaining that didn't win you a job.
You, are a great software developer.
Much better than I in all probability.
You are a complete and utter asshole in nearly every other respect (yes, even in your music) and it should come as no surprise that you cannot land a job on a team.
I would not pay money for your projects since I don't use them but I will send you $20 to stay in a hole, write software and restrict yourself from communicating with the outside world.
Really, the world would be a better place.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691781</id>
	<title>OSD?</title>
	<author>shadowknot</author>
	<datestamp>1247589540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think Zed needs to read this as he seems to have lost the spirit of open source entirely:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>
<b>1. Free Redistribution</b>
<br>
The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.
<br>
<b>2. Source Code</b>
<br>
The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form. Where some form of a product is not distributed with source code, there must be a well-publicized means of obtaining the source code for no more than a reasonable reproduction cost preferably, downloading via the Internet without charge. The source code must be the preferred form in which a programmer would modify the program. Deliberately obfuscated source code is not allowed. Intermediate forms such as the output of a preprocessor or translator are not allowed.
<br>
<b>3. Derived Works</b>
<br>
The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software.
<br>
<b>4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code</b>
<br>
The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in modified form only if the license allows the distribution of "patch files" with the source code for the purpose of modifying the program at build time. The license must explicitly permit distribution of software built from modified source code. The license may require derived works to carry a different name or version number from the original software.
<br>
<b>5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups</b>
<br>
The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.
<br>
<b>6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor</b>
<br>
The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.
<br>
<b>7. Distribution of License</b>
<br>
The rights attached to the program must apply to all to whom the program is redistributed without the need for execution of an additional license by those parties.
<br>
<b>8. License Must Not Be Specific to a Product</b>
<br>
The rights attached to the program must not depend on the program's being part of a particular software distribution. If the program is extracted from that distribution and used or distributed within the terms of the program's license, all parties to whom the program is redistributed should have the same rights as those that are granted in conjunction with the original software distribution.
<br>
<b>9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software</b>
<br>
The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be open-source software.
<br>
<b>10. License Must Be Technology-Neutral</b>
<br>
No provision of the license may be predicated on any individual technology or style of interface.
<br>
<a href="http://opensource.org/docs/osd" title="opensource.org">The Open Source Definition</a> [opensource.org] </p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think Zed needs to read this as he seems to have lost the spirit of open source entirely : 1 .
Free Redistribution The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources .
The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale .
2. Source Code The program must include source code , and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form .
Where some form of a product is not distributed with source code , there must be a well-publicized means of obtaining the source code for no more than a reasonable reproduction cost preferably , downloading via the Internet without charge .
The source code must be the preferred form in which a programmer would modify the program .
Deliberately obfuscated source code is not allowed .
Intermediate forms such as the output of a preprocessor or translator are not allowed .
3. Derived Works The license must allow modifications and derived works , and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software .
4. Integrity of The Author 's Source Code The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in modified form only if the license allows the distribution of " patch files " with the source code for the purpose of modifying the program at build time .
The license must explicitly permit distribution of software built from modified source code .
The license may require derived works to carry a different name or version number from the original software .
5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons .
6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor .
For example , it may not restrict the program from being used in a business , or from being used for genetic research .
7. Distribution of License The rights attached to the program must apply to all to whom the program is redistributed without the need for execution of an additional license by those parties .
8. License Must Not Be Specific to a Product The rights attached to the program must not depend on the program 's being part of a particular software distribution .
If the program is extracted from that distribution and used or distributed within the terms of the program 's license , all parties to whom the program is redistributed should have the same rights as those that are granted in conjunction with the original software distribution .
9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software .
For example , the license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be open-source software .
10. License Must Be Technology-Neutral No provision of the license may be predicated on any individual technology or style of interface .
The Open Source Definition [ opensource.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think Zed needs to read this as he seems to have lost the spirit of open source entirely:
1.
Free Redistribution

The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources.
The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.
2. Source Code

The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form.
Where some form of a product is not distributed with source code, there must be a well-publicized means of obtaining the source code for no more than a reasonable reproduction cost preferably, downloading via the Internet without charge.
The source code must be the preferred form in which a programmer would modify the program.
Deliberately obfuscated source code is not allowed.
Intermediate forms such as the output of a preprocessor or translator are not allowed.
3. Derived Works

The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software.
4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code

The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in modified form only if the license allows the distribution of "patch files" with the source code for the purpose of modifying the program at build time.
The license must explicitly permit distribution of software built from modified source code.
The license may require derived works to carry a different name or version number from the original software.
5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups

The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.
6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor

The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor.
For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.
7. Distribution of License

The rights attached to the program must apply to all to whom the program is redistributed without the need for execution of an additional license by those parties.
8. License Must Not Be Specific to a Product

The rights attached to the program must not depend on the program's being part of a particular software distribution.
If the program is extracted from that distribution and used or distributed within the terms of the program's license, all parties to whom the program is redistributed should have the same rights as those that are granted in conjunction with the original software distribution.
9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software

The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software.
For example, the license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be open-source software.
10. License Must Be Technology-Neutral

No provision of the license may be predicated on any individual technology or style of interface.
The Open Source Definition [opensource.org] 
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28695185</id>
	<title>People vs Computers</title>
	<author>TheKidYo</author>
	<datestamp>1247604660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Like most others here who have worked in a technical capacity most of their life, I have learned that my ability to communicate with people is much more valuable than my ability to communicate with a computer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Like most others here who have worked in a technical capacity most of their life , I have learned that my ability to communicate with people is much more valuable than my ability to communicate with a computer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like most others here who have worked in a technical capacity most of their life, I have learned that my ability to communicate with people is much more valuable than my ability to communicate with a computer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691657</id>
	<title>License</title>
	<author>Spacepup</author>
	<datestamp>1247589120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If his code is really that great, and he really has such a huge chip on his shoulder about not getting any accolades for his time and effort writing it, then he shouldn't have put it under the GPL license. If his code is really worth having, he could use a more traditional software license and sell his product for the big bucks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If his code is really that great , and he really has such a huge chip on his shoulder about not getting any accolades for his time and effort writing it , then he should n't have put it under the GPL license .
If his code is really worth having , he could use a more traditional software license and sell his product for the big bucks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If his code is really that great, and he really has such a huge chip on his shoulder about not getting any accolades for his time and effort writing it, then he shouldn't have put it under the GPL license.
If his code is really worth having, he could use a more traditional software license and sell his product for the big bucks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28693097</id>
	<title>Re:Don't know, don't care</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247594940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I never heard of any of this guy's software, I don't use it, and I don't care.  Sounds like he has an inflated sense of his own importance.</p></div><p>Sounds like you have an inflated sense of how many software projects you've heard of.  His software -is- widely used -<br>http://www.google.com/search?q=mongrel</p><p>get a grip...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I never heard of any of this guy 's software , I do n't use it , and I do n't care .
Sounds like he has an inflated sense of his own importance.Sounds like you have an inflated sense of how many software projects you 've heard of .
His software -is- widely used -http : //www.google.com/search ? q = mongrelget a grip.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I never heard of any of this guy's software, I don't use it, and I don't care.
Sounds like he has an inflated sense of his own importance.Sounds like you have an inflated sense of how many software projects you've heard of.
His software -is- widely used -http://www.google.com/search?q=mongrelget a grip...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691175</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28694485</id>
	<title>Re:Not really for that</title>
	<author>WNight</author>
	<datestamp>1247600880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem with the freedom for who, coders vs users question is that is draws a line between the two. By being focused on only the current coders and users. Users become coders - if they have the means.</p><p>Yes, the BSDL offers one more freedom, for THAT coder, the right the close the source.</p><p>The GPL offers that coder one less freedom, but offers all the rest to everyone else in perpetuity. Not only do they have access to the code you originally wrote, but to anything current which is based on it. Not just some neat old code, but code to THE binaries they're currently running.</p><p>But frankly, I've never seen a 'GPL is bad/BSD good' post that was anything other than an entitlement whine. "I should be able to close-source your code or I can't really use it, wah."</p><p>To anyone who feels this way, good. I mean <i>great</i>. Any license that keeps you from profiting and being stingy is doing its job.</p><p>This is a tempest in a tea-pot though. I challenge anyone to point out a real developer (other than Microsoft) with this GPL-bad attitude. The reality is that the GPL is no-more viral than a proprietary license. By mixing your code with someone else's you no-longer have full control over it. Anyone who says otherwise is trying to sell you something.</p><p>I've certainly never seen a prominent BSD community member with this attitude.  Not that BSDers love the GPL, but that no real open-source BSD dev is whining about their inability to close-source some GPL'd project. Their complaints are that our (GPLers) caring about what they see as a minor issue harms open-source in general by preventing BSD/GPL mixing.</p><p>Real coders and users don't fight over the BSD/GPL, because they benefit from both - whiners are never happy and will lie about their reasons (greed).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with the freedom for who , coders vs users question is that is draws a line between the two .
By being focused on only the current coders and users .
Users become coders - if they have the means.Yes , the BSDL offers one more freedom , for THAT coder , the right the close the source.The GPL offers that coder one less freedom , but offers all the rest to everyone else in perpetuity .
Not only do they have access to the code you originally wrote , but to anything current which is based on it .
Not just some neat old code , but code to THE binaries they 're currently running.But frankly , I 've never seen a 'GPL is bad/BSD good ' post that was anything other than an entitlement whine .
" I should be able to close-source your code or I ca n't really use it , wah .
" To anyone who feels this way , good .
I mean great .
Any license that keeps you from profiting and being stingy is doing its job.This is a tempest in a tea-pot though .
I challenge anyone to point out a real developer ( other than Microsoft ) with this GPL-bad attitude .
The reality is that the GPL is no-more viral than a proprietary license .
By mixing your code with someone else 's you no-longer have full control over it .
Anyone who says otherwise is trying to sell you something.I 've certainly never seen a prominent BSD community member with this attitude .
Not that BSDers love the GPL , but that no real open-source BSD dev is whining about their inability to close-source some GPL 'd project .
Their complaints are that our ( GPLers ) caring about what they see as a minor issue harms open-source in general by preventing BSD/GPL mixing.Real coders and users do n't fight over the BSD/GPL , because they benefit from both - whiners are never happy and will lie about their reasons ( greed ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with the freedom for who, coders vs users question is that is draws a line between the two.
By being focused on only the current coders and users.
Users become coders - if they have the means.Yes, the BSDL offers one more freedom, for THAT coder, the right the close the source.The GPL offers that coder one less freedom, but offers all the rest to everyone else in perpetuity.
Not only do they have access to the code you originally wrote, but to anything current which is based on it.
Not just some neat old code, but code to THE binaries they're currently running.But frankly, I've never seen a 'GPL is bad/BSD good' post that was anything other than an entitlement whine.
"I should be able to close-source your code or I can't really use it, wah.
"To anyone who feels this way, good.
I mean great.
Any license that keeps you from profiting and being stingy is doing its job.This is a tempest in a tea-pot though.
I challenge anyone to point out a real developer (other than Microsoft) with this GPL-bad attitude.
The reality is that the GPL is no-more viral than a proprietary license.
By mixing your code with someone else's you no-longer have full control over it.
Anyone who says otherwise is trying to sell you something.I've certainly never seen a prominent BSD community member with this attitude.
Not that BSDers love the GPL, but that no real open-source BSD dev is whining about their inability to close-source some GPL'd project.
Their complaints are that our (GPLers) caring about what they see as a minor issue harms open-source in general by preventing BSD/GPL mixing.Real coders and users don't fight over the BSD/GPL, because they benefit from both - whiners are never happy and will lie about their reasons (greed).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691659</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691259</id>
	<title>Reason 7</title>
	<author>jbolden</author>
	<datestamp>1247587320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The way the GPL has turned out is:</p><p>You use a product written by people who didn't foresee what you were going to use it for and they end up integrating changes to benefit someone whose use they didn't foresee.   By keeping the code free over the long haul you get fascinating cooperation at the code level.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The way the GPL has turned out is : You use a product written by people who did n't foresee what you were going to use it for and they end up integrating changes to benefit someone whose use they did n't foresee .
By keeping the code free over the long haul you get fascinating cooperation at the code level .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The way the GPL has turned out is:You use a product written by people who didn't foresee what you were going to use it for and they end up integrating changes to benefit someone whose use they didn't foresee.
By keeping the code free over the long haul you get fascinating cooperation at the code level.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28696741</id>
	<title>Re:Nobody hired you?</title>
	<author>BalrogZed</author>
	<datestamp>1247567880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Scathing and accurate. I like,</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Scathing and accurate .
I like,</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Scathing and accurate.
I like,</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691157</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691427</id>
	<title>Sadly this is the truth</title>
	<author>DontBlameCanada</author>
	<datestamp>1247588040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"There is no honor among theives," as the saying goes.</p><p>I've had the displeasure of witnessing senior management at my company throw a fit over the fact that a key piece of code that we needed was GPL'd. At the time, I was pissed too, as our schedule was at risk. "If you're going to tease us with this working and tested subsystem, it should be 'licensed' so that we can use it."</p><p>Then after the deadline passed I stepped back and thought, "My gawd, we were angry that someone published their code for all to see, but we were forced to read it, understand what it does before implementing a similar (but wholely custom) mechanism." We should've been ecstatic that we didn't have to reinvent the wheel from the ground up, but being the selfish, ungrateful users of open source that we are, we got mad that we actually have to put some effort into doing it. I'm ashamed.</p><p>Gone are the days of, "if its not invented here, we don't trust it." Now it's, "You invented that?!!!?1one!!! Why didn't you use an open source project?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" There is no honor among theives , " as the saying goes.I 've had the displeasure of witnessing senior management at my company throw a fit over the fact that a key piece of code that we needed was GPL 'd .
At the time , I was pissed too , as our schedule was at risk .
" If you 're going to tease us with this working and tested subsystem , it should be 'licensed ' so that we can use it .
" Then after the deadline passed I stepped back and thought , " My gawd , we were angry that someone published their code for all to see , but we were forced to read it , understand what it does before implementing a similar ( but wholely custom ) mechanism .
" We should 've been ecstatic that we did n't have to reinvent the wheel from the ground up , but being the selfish , ungrateful users of open source that we are , we got mad that we actually have to put some effort into doing it .
I 'm ashamed.Gone are the days of , " if its not invented here , we do n't trust it .
" Now it 's , " You invented that ? ! ! ! ? 1one ! ! !
Why did n't you use an open source project ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"There is no honor among theives," as the saying goes.I've had the displeasure of witnessing senior management at my company throw a fit over the fact that a key piece of code that we needed was GPL'd.
At the time, I was pissed too, as our schedule was at risk.
"If you're going to tease us with this working and tested subsystem, it should be 'licensed' so that we can use it.
"Then after the deadline passed I stepped back and thought, "My gawd, we were angry that someone published their code for all to see, but we were forced to read it, understand what it does before implementing a similar (but wholely custom) mechanism.
" We should've been ecstatic that we didn't have to reinvent the wheel from the ground up, but being the selfish, ungrateful users of open source that we are, we got mad that we actually have to put some effort into doing it.
I'm ashamed.Gone are the days of, "if its not invented here, we don't trust it.
" Now it's, "You invented that?!!!?1one!!!
Why didn't you use an open source project?
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28692801</id>
	<title>Re:Not really for that</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247593800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>please explain in what way the bsd license restricts the rights of the users</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>please explain in what way the bsd license restricts the rights of the users</tokentext>
<sentencetext>please explain in what way the bsd license restricts the rights of the users</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691659</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691561</id>
	<title>Re:Money quote</title>
	<author>truthsearch</author>
	<datestamp>1247588700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Standard quotation marks always seemed like a no-brainer to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Standard quotation marks always seemed like a no-brainer to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Standard quotation marks always seemed like a no-brainer to me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691033</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28695545</id>
	<title>Re:Oh wow, it's almost exactly why I don't like GP</title>
	<author>thePowerOfGrayskull</author>
	<datestamp>1247562960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The GPLv2 is a measure to prevent people from taking away freedoms in our modern, copyright-dominated world</p></div><p>And it does this by restricting the freedoms you have with the code.  Ironic, isn't it?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The GPLv2 is a measure to prevent people from taking away freedoms in our modern , copyright-dominated worldAnd it does this by restricting the freedoms you have with the code .
Ironic , is n't it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The GPLv2 is a measure to prevent people from taking away freedoms in our modern, copyright-dominated worldAnd it does this by restricting the freedoms you have with the code.
Ironic, isn't it?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691203</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28692401</id>
	<title>Re:Not really for that</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247592060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Just because someone can use your code in a closed source project doesn't make your code any less free.</p></div><p>Sure it does! Just add a little patch to open source program $foo, make it closed source and sell it. Now $costumer can't profit from upstream bugfixes anymore.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Thats not free, thats a scam.  You are continuing the scam.</p></div><p>Wow, now GPL is a scam? I wonder who's the douchebag, now.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The two licenses serve different purposes and can serve them well, but using one to push your agenda  by propagating falsehoods about how one is 'more free' than the other is wrong, especially when you have it backwards be pretty much every possible definition.</p></div><p>Just like you, douchebag.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just because someone can use your code in a closed source project does n't make your code any less free.Sure it does !
Just add a little patch to open source program $ foo , make it closed source and sell it .
Now $ costumer ca n't profit from upstream bugfixes anymore.Thats not free , thats a scam .
You are continuing the scam.Wow , now GPL is a scam ?
I wonder who 's the douchebag , now.The two licenses serve different purposes and can serve them well , but using one to push your agenda by propagating falsehoods about how one is 'more free ' than the other is wrong , especially when you have it backwards be pretty much every possible definition.Just like you , douchebag .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just because someone can use your code in a closed source project doesn't make your code any less free.Sure it does!
Just add a little patch to open source program $foo, make it closed source and sell it.
Now $costumer can't profit from upstream bugfixes anymore.Thats not free, thats a scam.
You are continuing the scam.Wow, now GPL is a scam?
I wonder who's the douchebag, now.The two licenses serve different purposes and can serve them well, but using one to push your agenda  by propagating falsehoods about how one is 'more free' than the other is wrong, especially when you have it backwards be pretty much every possible definition.Just like you, douchebag.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28692033</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28696443</id>
	<title>Re:If your code...</title>
	<author>PitaBred</author>
	<datestamp>1247566380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're assuming the editors are able to realize that it's something blatantly wrong. See, it takes a certain level of skill in an area to recognize incompetence, and if you don't have that, you can't tell when something is wrong. Quite the opposite in fact... you think it's right when it really is wrong.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're assuming the editors are able to realize that it 's something blatantly wrong .
See , it takes a certain level of skill in an area to recognize incompetence , and if you do n't have that , you ca n't tell when something is wrong .
Quite the opposite in fact... you think it 's right when it really is wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're assuming the editors are able to realize that it's something blatantly wrong.
See, it takes a certain level of skill in an area to recognize incompetence, and if you don't have that, you can't tell when something is wrong.
Quite the opposite in fact... you think it's right when it really is wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691519</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1414259_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28690997
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691659
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28692801
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1414259_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691259
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28694903
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28696605
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1414259_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691033
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691569
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28692959
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1414259_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28690911
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691157
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691787
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28692741
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1414259_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28690997
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691659
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28694485
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1414259_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28690997
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691659
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28700701
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1414259_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691175
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28692467
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1414259_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28690911
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28699553
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1414259_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691035
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28699829
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1414259_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691811
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28698141
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1414259_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691393
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28696319
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1414259_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28693583
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28694681
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1414259_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691331
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28705639
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1414259_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691811
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28697319
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1414259_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28690997
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28692097
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1414259_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691501
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691715
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1414259_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691811
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28693157
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1414259_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28690997
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28693791
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1414259_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28690935
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28693003
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1414259_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28690997
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28693241
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1414259_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28690911
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28694597
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1414259_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691331
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28692769
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1414259_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691035
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28694027
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1414259_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28693583
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28693969
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1414259_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28690997
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691659
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28698727
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1414259_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28690911
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28694161
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1414259_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28690997
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691659
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28692443
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28695431
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1414259_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28690997
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28692033
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28692401
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28693283
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1414259_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28690911
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691021
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28692071
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1414259_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691611
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28695197
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1414259_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28690997
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691659
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28695629
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1414259_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28690911
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691157
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691787
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28692671
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1414259_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691035
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28694419
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1414259_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28690997
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691659
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28693135
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1414259_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691035
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28696737
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1414259_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28693583
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28697261
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1414259_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691073
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28692969
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1414259_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691073
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28694517
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1414259_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28690997
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691659
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28692819
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1414259_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28690997
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691659
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28694697
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1414259_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28690997
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691659
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28696795
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1414259_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691519
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28698823
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1414259_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691519
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28694197
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1414259_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28690911
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691089
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1414259_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691073
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28693821
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1414259_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28690997
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691659
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28695971
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1414259_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28690997
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28707841
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1414259_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28690911
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691041
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28699827
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1414259_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691389
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691911
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1414259_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28690997
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28693493
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1414259_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691033
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28702113
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1414259_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28690911
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691157
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28696741
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1414259_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691175
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28693097
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1414259_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691203
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691603
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1414259_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28690911
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691071
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28701451
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1414259_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691033
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28693825
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1414259_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691033
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691561
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1414259_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691519
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28696443
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1414259_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691277
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28692813
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1414259_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28690911
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28692975
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1414259_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691519
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28694627
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1414259_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691331
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691877
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1414259_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691647
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28695717
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1414259_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691811
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28692299
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1414259_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691035
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28692513
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1414259_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691203
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28695545
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1414259_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28690997
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691659
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28694279
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1414259_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691825
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28722119
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1414259_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28690911
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691157
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28692037
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28695987
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1414259_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691277
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28693221
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1414259_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28694829
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28696143
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1414259_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691035
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691303
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1414259_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691811
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28692707
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1414259.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691259
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28694903
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28696605
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1414259.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691427
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1414259.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691175
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28693097
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28692467
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1414259.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691865
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1414259.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691611
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28695197
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1414259.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28690911
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28694597
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691071
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28701451
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691021
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28692071
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691041
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28699827
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691157
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28696741
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691787
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28692671
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28692741
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28692037
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28695987
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28699553
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691089
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28694161
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28692975
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1414259.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28693583
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28693969
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28697261
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28694681
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1414259.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691043
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1414259.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691519
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28694627
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28698823
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28696443
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28694197
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1414259.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691331
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28705639
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691877
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28692769
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1414259.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28692735
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1414259.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28695021
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1414259.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28692843
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1414259.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28690899
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1414259.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691389
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691911
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1414259.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691033
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691561
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691513
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28693825
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28702113
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691569
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28692959
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1414259.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691393
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28696319
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1414259.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691391
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1414259.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691229
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1414259.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28690935
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28693003
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1414259.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691975
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1414259.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691271
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1414259.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28690997
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691855
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28692097
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28707841
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28693791
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28693493
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28692033
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28692401
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28693283
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28693241
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691659
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28694279
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28692819
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28700701
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28698727
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28694485
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28695971
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28694697
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28692801
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28692443
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28695431
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28693135
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28695629
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28696795
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1414259.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691501
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691715
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1414259.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691811
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28692299
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28692707
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28698141
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28697319
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28693157
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1414259.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691073
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28694517
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28692969
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28693821
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1414259.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691277
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28692813
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28693221
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1414259.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691647
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28695717
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1414259.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691825
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28722119
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1414259.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28694829
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28696143
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1414259.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691035
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691631
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28696737
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28694027
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691303
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28694419
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691205
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28692513
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28699829
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1414259.31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691203
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28695545
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1414259.28691603
</commentlist>
</conversation>
