<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_07_1547214</id>
	<title>Did Microsoft Borrow GPL Code For a Windows 7 Utility?</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1257610920000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://twitter.com/jfield" rel="nofollow">Goatbert</a> writes <i>"Rafael Rivera over at WithinWindows.com has found evidence that Microsoft has potentially <a href="http://www.withinwindows.com/2009/11/06/microsoft-lifts-gpl-code-uses-in-microsoft-store-tool/">stolen code from an open source/GPL'd project</a> (<a href="http://imagemaster.codeplex.com/">ImageMaster</a>) for a utility made available on the Microsoft Store to allow download customers to copy the Windows 7 setup files to a DVD or USB Flash Drive. If Rivera's evidence holds up, this could be some serious egg in the face for Microsoft at a time when they're getting mostly good press from the tech media."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Goatbert writes " Rafael Rivera over at WithinWindows.com has found evidence that Microsoft has potentially stolen code from an open source/GPL 'd project ( ImageMaster ) for a utility made available on the Microsoft Store to allow download customers to copy the Windows 7 setup files to a DVD or USB Flash Drive .
If Rivera 's evidence holds up , this could be some serious egg in the face for Microsoft at a time when they 're getting mostly good press from the tech media .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Goatbert writes "Rafael Rivera over at WithinWindows.com has found evidence that Microsoft has potentially stolen code from an open source/GPL'd project (ImageMaster) for a utility made available on the Microsoft Store to allow download customers to copy the Windows 7 setup files to a DVD or USB Flash Drive.
If Rivera's evidence holds up, this could be some serious egg in the face for Microsoft at a time when they're getting mostly good press from the tech media.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30016792</id>
	<title>Re:It's not "stealing"...right?</title>
	<author>syousef</author>
	<datestamp>1257588600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Come on people, you can't have it both ways. If you can't "steal" music, you can't "steal" code. MS "stealing" this code </i></p><p>1) Yes you can have it both ways, when you're talking about a large community with widely differing views on the matter</p><p>2) The megacorps like Microsoft are CONSISTENTLY backing all kinds of draconian methods to enforce their copyright including legislative changes that make the punishment for copyright infringment much more severe than any violent crime. It is therefore only right to hold them to task when they also infringe copyright.</p><p>3) It's been beaten to death but there is a difference between copyright infringement and theft. Nothing was stolen here, but copyright may have been infringed. Why is this important? Because it's a different crime with different implications for all involved and such sloppiness with definitions means any rational argument becomes clouded unnecessarily. Stealing a car has far different implications for the owner, manufacturer, supplier/dealer and insurance company than having a copied made.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Come on people , you ca n't have it both ways .
If you ca n't " steal " music , you ca n't " steal " code .
MS " stealing " this code 1 ) Yes you can have it both ways , when you 're talking about a large community with widely differing views on the matter2 ) The megacorps like Microsoft are CONSISTENTLY backing all kinds of draconian methods to enforce their copyright including legislative changes that make the punishment for copyright infringment much more severe than any violent crime .
It is therefore only right to hold them to task when they also infringe copyright.3 ) It 's been beaten to death but there is a difference between copyright infringement and theft .
Nothing was stolen here , but copyright may have been infringed .
Why is this important ?
Because it 's a different crime with different implications for all involved and such sloppiness with definitions means any rational argument becomes clouded unnecessarily .
Stealing a car has far different implications for the owner , manufacturer , supplier/dealer and insurance company than having a copied made .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Come on people, you can't have it both ways.
If you can't "steal" music, you can't "steal" code.
MS "stealing" this code 1) Yes you can have it both ways, when you're talking about a large community with widely differing views on the matter2) The megacorps like Microsoft are CONSISTENTLY backing all kinds of draconian methods to enforce their copyright including legislative changes that make the punishment for copyright infringment much more severe than any violent crime.
It is therefore only right to hold them to task when they also infringe copyright.3) It's been beaten to death but there is a difference between copyright infringement and theft.
Nothing was stolen here, but copyright may have been infringed.
Why is this important?
Because it's a different crime with different implications for all involved and such sloppiness with definitions means any rational argument becomes clouded unnecessarily.
Stealing a car has far different implications for the owner, manufacturer, supplier/dealer and insurance company than having a copied made.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015306</id>
	<title>Re:It's .NET code</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257619560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET code. It's already "Open Source" by virtue of tools like Reflector existing.</p></div><p> <a href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html" title="gnu.org" rel="nofollow">LOL, yes but not Free Software.</a> [gnu.org]</p><p>I hope they did violate the license and will be sued to the ground.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's .NET code .
It 's already " Open Source " by virtue of tools like Reflector existing .
LOL , yes but not Free Software .
[ gnu.org ] I hope they did violate the license and will be sued to the ground .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's .NET code.
It's already "Open Source" by virtue of tools like Reflector existing.
LOL, yes but not Free Software.
[gnu.org]I hope they did violate the license and will be sued to the ground.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30019362</id>
	<title>Re:It's not "stealing"...right?</title>
	<author>nadaou</author>
	<datestamp>1257617700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I don't think everyone here believes you can't steal music, first off.</p></div></blockquote><p>(too many double negatives makes $meme)</p><p>Is it possible to steal an intangible item? a thought? a song? a rainbow?</p><p>The solution is clear: steal musicians, German scientists, and my little ponies instead.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think everyone here believes you ca n't steal music , first off .
( too many double negatives makes $ meme ) Is it possible to steal an intangible item ?
a thought ?
a song ?
a rainbow ? The solution is clear : steal musicians , German scientists , and my little ponies instead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think everyone here believes you can't steal music, first off.
(too many double negatives makes $meme)Is it possible to steal an intangible item?
a thought?
a song?
a rainbow?The solution is clear: steal musicians, German scientists, and my little ponies instead.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015778</id>
	<title>Re:Knee jerk</title>
	<author>KarmaMB84</author>
	<datestamp>1257622740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The magic numbers are from a file format specification. You're not going to change those magic numbers if you want the tool to work.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The magic numbers are from a file format specification .
You 're not going to change those magic numbers if you want the tool to work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The magic numbers are from a file format specification.
You're not going to change those magic numbers if you want the tool to work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015308</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30016446</id>
	<title>Re:It's not "stealing"...right?</title>
	<author>HiThere</author>
	<datestamp>1257585180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are correct.  The assertion should be copyright infringement.  And the consensus seems to be "Not proven".</p><p>Perhaps it is copyright infringement, and the evidence appears suggestive.  But suggestive is all that it is.  So far.</p><p>(OTOH, I'm basing my judgment on summaries provided by other readers.  I'm not involved, even in making accusations, so that's fair.  But it *does* mean you shouldn't take the judgments too seriously.  Even so, the accusation should clearly have been copyright infringement.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are correct .
The assertion should be copyright infringement .
And the consensus seems to be " Not proven " .Perhaps it is copyright infringement , and the evidence appears suggestive .
But suggestive is all that it is .
So far .
( OTOH , I 'm basing my judgment on summaries provided by other readers .
I 'm not involved , even in making accusations , so that 's fair .
But it * does * mean you should n't take the judgments too seriously .
Even so , the accusation should clearly have been copyright infringement .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are correct.
The assertion should be copyright infringement.
And the consensus seems to be "Not proven".Perhaps it is copyright infringement, and the evidence appears suggestive.
But suggestive is all that it is.
So far.
(OTOH, I'm basing my judgment on summaries provided by other readers.
I'm not involved, even in making accusations, so that's fair.
But it *does* mean you shouldn't take the judgments too seriously.
Even so, the accusation should clearly have been copyright infringement.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015340</id>
	<title>Re:Knee jerk</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257619740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I'll wait till there's evidence before even commenting about the ramifications of something like this. This is just wild speculation at this point.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
He's updated the site with a better <a href="http://www.withinwindows.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/example1.png" title="withinwindows.com" rel="nofollow">example</a> [withinwindows.com]. From the revised article:</p><blockquote><div><p>Update 11/7: The example I provided yesterday (ReadBytes) was replaced with a new one. Note that it is only an example. I&rsquo;m not here to prove my case in a huge exhaustive post for you. That&rsquo;s left as an exercise for the reader.</p></div>
</blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll wait till there 's evidence before even commenting about the ramifications of something like this .
This is just wild speculation at this point .
He 's updated the site with a better example [ withinwindows.com ] .
From the revised article : Update 11/7 : The example I provided yesterday ( ReadBytes ) was replaced with a new one .
Note that it is only an example .
I    m not here to prove my case in a huge exhaustive post for you .
That    s left as an exercise for the reader .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll wait till there's evidence before even commenting about the ramifications of something like this.
This is just wild speculation at this point.
He's updated the site with a better example [withinwindows.com].
From the revised article:Update 11/7: The example I provided yesterday (ReadBytes) was replaced with a new one.
Note that it is only an example.
I’m not here to prove my case in a huge exhaustive post for you.
That’s left as an exercise for the reader.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014706</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015140</id>
	<title>Re:It's not "stealing"...right?</title>
	<author>Timothy Brownawell</author>
	<datestamp>1257618600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm fairly sure that by accepting money for someone else's property, you are stealing money from that person, whether you deprived that person of the property or not.</p></div><p>The actual code isn't anyone's property, only the copyright on the code is.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm fairly sure that by accepting money for someone else 's property , you are stealing money from that person , whether you deprived that person of the property or not.The actual code is n't anyone 's property , only the copyright on the code is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm fairly sure that by accepting money for someone else's property, you are stealing money from that person, whether you deprived that person of the property or not.The actual code isn't anyone's property, only the copyright on the code is.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30030708</id>
	<title>Re:"Obviously lifted" not so obvious</title>
	<author>makomk</author>
	<datestamp>1257766620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The file format doesn't determine the names of the classes used by your code and of their members, though, does it? They're identical.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The file format does n't determine the names of the classes used by your code and of their members , though , does it ?
They 're identical .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The file format doesn't determine the names of the classes used by your code and of their members, though, does it?
They're identical.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015338</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014772</id>
	<title>Re:"Obviously lifted" not so obvious</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257615720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Alternative theory: It was merely an example.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Alternative theory : It was merely an example .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Alternative theory: It was merely an example.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30017182</id>
	<title>Re:It's not "stealing"...right?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257592500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can't steal music. You can't steal literature. At least if it's published.</p><p>But you can steal the livelihoods of the artists, composers and authors.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You ca n't steal music .
You ca n't steal literature .
At least if it 's published.But you can steal the livelihoods of the artists , composers and authors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can't steal music.
You can't steal literature.
At least if it's published.But you can steal the livelihoods of the artists, composers and authors.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30016570</id>
	<title>Re:Doesn't sound significant</title>
	<author>Al Dimond</author>
	<datestamp>1257586500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If it turns out that Microsoft copied code from this GPL project (it's possible that both used a common reference source -- comments on the blog post mention that there are lots of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET code samples out there, many from Microsoft itself... I don't know a lot about this, but I could see something like ReadBytes being one of these) it's a copyright infringement issue.  The developer of the original project would probably try to come to an agreement with Microsoft.  One possible agreement would be that they would comply retroactively with the GPL, and thus offer its terms to all users (applying to everything statically linked to the infringing code, if I understand it correctly).  If they couldn't come to an agreement the original developer could sue Microsoft.</p><p>Forcing the guy to sue would probably be an effective strategy for Microsoft, although it could be a bad PR move if it got public enough.  It *might* be able to get out of offering the GPL to anyone, instead only paying a small sum of money to the developer (the court probably can force Microsoft to offer the GPL, but I'm not sure it would -- and since the program is offered for free it's hard for the developer to claim much in the way of monetary damage).  The court probably wouldn't force Microsoft to stop distributing the software with any urgency, because that would disrupt too many people.  They'd have some reasonable amount of time, after the verdict, to comply, but they'd have been working on a solution throughout the trial while only racking up more fees to the developer, who would himself be racking up legal bills and wasting his own time.</p><p>That is the case regardless of whether it was a "rogue developer" or an order straight from Steve Ballmer.  Either way, this whole post is irrelevant if Microsoft didn't actually infringe, which is quite possible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it turns out that Microsoft copied code from this GPL project ( it 's possible that both used a common reference source -- comments on the blog post mention that there are lots of .NET code samples out there , many from Microsoft itself... I do n't know a lot about this , but I could see something like ReadBytes being one of these ) it 's a copyright infringement issue .
The developer of the original project would probably try to come to an agreement with Microsoft .
One possible agreement would be that they would comply retroactively with the GPL , and thus offer its terms to all users ( applying to everything statically linked to the infringing code , if I understand it correctly ) .
If they could n't come to an agreement the original developer could sue Microsoft.Forcing the guy to sue would probably be an effective strategy for Microsoft , although it could be a bad PR move if it got public enough .
It * might * be able to get out of offering the GPL to anyone , instead only paying a small sum of money to the developer ( the court probably can force Microsoft to offer the GPL , but I 'm not sure it would -- and since the program is offered for free it 's hard for the developer to claim much in the way of monetary damage ) .
The court probably would n't force Microsoft to stop distributing the software with any urgency , because that would disrupt too many people .
They 'd have some reasonable amount of time , after the verdict , to comply , but they 'd have been working on a solution throughout the trial while only racking up more fees to the developer , who would himself be racking up legal bills and wasting his own time.That is the case regardless of whether it was a " rogue developer " or an order straight from Steve Ballmer .
Either way , this whole post is irrelevant if Microsoft did n't actually infringe , which is quite possible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it turns out that Microsoft copied code from this GPL project (it's possible that both used a common reference source -- comments on the blog post mention that there are lots of .NET code samples out there, many from Microsoft itself... I don't know a lot about this, but I could see something like ReadBytes being one of these) it's a copyright infringement issue.
The developer of the original project would probably try to come to an agreement with Microsoft.
One possible agreement would be that they would comply retroactively with the GPL, and thus offer its terms to all users (applying to everything statically linked to the infringing code, if I understand it correctly).
If they couldn't come to an agreement the original developer could sue Microsoft.Forcing the guy to sue would probably be an effective strategy for Microsoft, although it could be a bad PR move if it got public enough.
It *might* be able to get out of offering the GPL to anyone, instead only paying a small sum of money to the developer (the court probably can force Microsoft to offer the GPL, but I'm not sure it would -- and since the program is offered for free it's hard for the developer to claim much in the way of monetary damage).
The court probably wouldn't force Microsoft to stop distributing the software with any urgency, because that would disrupt too many people.
They'd have some reasonable amount of time, after the verdict, to comply, but they'd have been working on a solution throughout the trial while only racking up more fees to the developer, who would himself be racking up legal bills and wasting his own time.That is the case regardless of whether it was a "rogue developer" or an order straight from Steve Ballmer.
Either way, this whole post is irrelevant if Microsoft didn't actually infringe, which is quite possible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014998</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30017368</id>
	<title>Re:"Obviously lifted" not so obvious</title>
	<author>mdielmann</author>
	<datestamp>1257594480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's almost a form of Nirvana once you reach this point.</p></div><p>Come on, Nirvana sucked...okay, I see your point.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's almost a form of Nirvana once you reach this point.Come on , Nirvana sucked...okay , I see your point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's almost a form of Nirvana once you reach this point.Come on, Nirvana sucked...okay, I see your point.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30016300</id>
	<title>Re:"Obviously lifted" not so obvious</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257626760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If you read TFA (yeah, I know...) you'll see the author has updated that original example with others [withinwindows.com].</p></div> </blockquote><p>OP clearly did read TFA since he was criticizing the specifics provided. I'm not sure why you're taking a shot at that since the update was clearly made after the comment was posted.

</p><blockquote><div><p>It looks like Microsoft's defence will be that the EULA says "&ldquo;You may not reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble the software". They'll probably charge the guy with a DMCA violation...</p></div></blockquote><p>Why does it look like that exactly? Are you getting this from anywhere or just pulling it out of your ass?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you read TFA ( yeah , I know... ) you 'll see the author has updated that original example with others [ withinwindows.com ] .
OP clearly did read TFA since he was criticizing the specifics provided .
I 'm not sure why you 're taking a shot at that since the update was clearly made after the comment was posted .
It looks like Microsoft 's defence will be that the EULA says "    You may not reverse engineer , decompile or disassemble the software " .
They 'll probably charge the guy with a DMCA violation...Why does it look like that exactly ?
Are you getting this from anywhere or just pulling it out of your ass ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you read TFA (yeah, I know...) you'll see the author has updated that original example with others [withinwindows.com].
OP clearly did read TFA since he was criticizing the specifics provided.
I'm not sure why you're taking a shot at that since the update was clearly made after the comment was posted.
It looks like Microsoft's defence will be that the EULA says "“You may not reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble the software".
They'll probably charge the guy with a DMCA violation...Why does it look like that exactly?
Are you getting this from anywhere or just pulling it out of your ass?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015042</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015200</id>
	<title>Re:It's not "stealing"...right?</title>
	<author>windsurfer619</author>
	<datestamp>1257618900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Troll!</p><p>Copyleft was invented to counteract copyrighted code. People who use copyleft won't let people abuse the licenses until we can abuse copyright.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Troll ! Copyleft was invented to counteract copyrighted code .
People who use copyleft wo n't let people abuse the licenses until we can abuse copyright .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Troll!Copyleft was invented to counteract copyrighted code.
People who use copyleft won't let people abuse the licenses until we can abuse copyright.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30026348</id>
	<title>Re:It's not "stealing"...right?</title>
	<author>DaVince21</author>
	<datestamp>1257683340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't Copy That Code!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't Copy That Code !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't Copy That Code!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014946</id>
	<title>Re:It's not "stealing"...right?</title>
	<author>Virak</author>
	<datestamp>1257617400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is a distinct difference between infringing on someone's copyright and infringing on someone's copyright and <i>trying to pass their work off as your own</i>.</p><p>Your pathetic trolling aside, I seriously doubt Microsoft would do something nearly this stupid. What would they have to gain from it? Certainly not enough to offset the damage caused by it being found out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a distinct difference between infringing on someone 's copyright and infringing on someone 's copyright and trying to pass their work off as your own.Your pathetic trolling aside , I seriously doubt Microsoft would do something nearly this stupid .
What would they have to gain from it ?
Certainly not enough to offset the damage caused by it being found out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a distinct difference between infringing on someone's copyright and infringing on someone's copyright and trying to pass their work off as your own.Your pathetic trolling aside, I seriously doubt Microsoft would do something nearly this stupid.
What would they have to gain from it?
Certainly not enough to offset the damage caused by it being found out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015628</id>
	<title>Re:It's .NET code</title>
	<author>The MAZZTer</author>
	<datestamp>1257621840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Reflector is a decompiler.  It takes the MSIL codes and translates them back into VB.NET or C# instructions.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Reflector is a decompiler .
It takes the MSIL codes and translates them back into VB.NET or C # instructions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reflector is a decompiler.
It takes the MSIL codes and translates them back into VB.NET or C# instructions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015074</id>
	<title>Re:It's not "stealing"...right?</title>
	<author>Junior J. Junior III</author>
	<datestamp>1257618240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is the correct argument, but you have it backward.  If it's OK for MS to "steal" (by the definition that MS accepts for the word) then MS should allow people to "steal" Windows, and stop complaining about, trying to stop, prosecuting, software piracy.  They should amend their EULA to allow users to decompile, reverse engineer, and modify their binaries.</p><p>Besides, it's not as though GPL code is anti-copyright.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the correct argument , but you have it backward .
If it 's OK for MS to " steal " ( by the definition that MS accepts for the word ) then MS should allow people to " steal " Windows , and stop complaining about , trying to stop , prosecuting , software piracy .
They should amend their EULA to allow users to decompile , reverse engineer , and modify their binaries.Besides , it 's not as though GPL code is anti-copyright .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is the correct argument, but you have it backward.
If it's OK for MS to "steal" (by the definition that MS accepts for the word) then MS should allow people to "steal" Windows, and stop complaining about, trying to stop, prosecuting, software piracy.
They should amend their EULA to allow users to decompile, reverse engineer, and modify their binaries.Besides, it's not as though GPL code is anti-copyright.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30029776</id>
	<title>Re:"Obviously lifted" not so obvious</title>
	<author>Engeekneer</author>
	<datestamp>1257799020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you really did GPLd it, you should have included the license with the code. So hah!</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you really did GPLd it , you should have included the license with the code .
So hah !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you really did GPLd it, you should have included the license with the code.
So hah!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30016272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30020030</id>
	<title>Re:"Obviously lifted" not so obvious</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257674460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Run it through Moss:<br>http://theory.stanford.edu/~aiken/moss/</p><p>It'll tell you if it stolen or not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Run it through Moss : http : //theory.stanford.edu/ ~ aiken/moss/It 'll tell you if it stolen or not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Run it through Moss:http://theory.stanford.edu/~aiken/moss/It'll tell you if it stolen or not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014780</id>
	<title>no big deal</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257615840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>in the worst case, they could publish the full source of the application in order to comply with the gpl... I mean, it is just a tool to copy files from a to b, right? so it is kind of a silly article.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>in the worst case , they could publish the full source of the application in order to comply with the gpl... I mean , it is just a tool to copy files from a to b , right ?
so it is kind of a silly article .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>in the worst case, they could publish the full source of the application in order to comply with the gpl... I mean, it is just a tool to copy files from a to b, right?
so it is kind of a silly article.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014712</id>
	<title>Dear Slashdot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257615120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Stop being insecure about Windows' successes.  It's fucking embarassing.  Linux has it's place, and that place is nowhere near the average consumer's home computer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Stop being insecure about Windows ' successes .
It 's fucking embarassing .
Linux has it 's place , and that place is nowhere near the average consumer 's home computer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stop being insecure about Windows' successes.
It's fucking embarassing.
Linux has it's place, and that place is nowhere near the average consumer's home computer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015466</id>
	<title>From TFA</title>
	<author>digitalPhant0m</author>
	<datestamp>1257620700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>From TFA<p><div class="quote"><p>You may not<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble the software, except and only to the extent that applicable law expressly permits, despite this limitation;</p></div><p>Which seems to be exactly what the Author has done. Sucks to be him, or anyone else trying to find out if M$ has stolen your code and violated your license, since the only way to find out, is to violate M$'s license agreement.

Have fun in court.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From TFAYou may not ... reverse engineer , decompile or disassemble the software , except and only to the extent that applicable law expressly permits , despite this limitation ; Which seems to be exactly what the Author has done .
Sucks to be him , or anyone else trying to find out if M $ has stolen your code and violated your license , since the only way to find out , is to violate M $ 's license agreement .
Have fun in court .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From TFAYou may not ... reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble the software, except and only to the extent that applicable law expressly permits, despite this limitation;Which seems to be exactly what the Author has done.
Sucks to be him, or anyone else trying to find out if M$ has stolen your code and violated your license, since the only way to find out, is to violate M$'s license agreement.
Have fun in court.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014758</id>
	<title>It's .NET code</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257615660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET code.  It's already "Open Source" by virtue of tools like <a href="http://www.red-gate.com/products/reflector/" title="red-gate.com" rel="nofollow">Reflector</a> [red-gate.com] existing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's .NET code .
It 's already " Open Source " by virtue of tools like Reflector [ red-gate.com ] existing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's .NET code.
It's already "Open Source" by virtue of tools like Reflector [red-gate.com] existing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015018</id>
	<title>Did a GPL project steal code from Microsoft?</title>
	<author>Manfre</author>
	<datestamp>1257617880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With the amount of "evidence" in the article, the same accusation could be made against the GPL project. Perhaps the author of that project illegally gained access to Microsoft code and used it as a starting point for ImageMaster.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With the amount of " evidence " in the article , the same accusation could be made against the GPL project .
Perhaps the author of that project illegally gained access to Microsoft code and used it as a starting point for ImageMaster .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With the amount of "evidence" in the article, the same accusation could be made against the GPL project.
Perhaps the author of that project illegally gained access to Microsoft code and used it as a starting point for ImageMaster.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014898</id>
	<title>I, for one</title>
	<author>eclectro</author>
	<datestamp>1257616920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I, for one, welcome our newest open source project to the community - Windows 7.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I , for one , welcome our newest open source project to the community - Windows 7 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I, for one, welcome our newest open source project to the community - Windows 7.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014988</id>
	<title>Re:It's not "stealing"...right?</title>
	<author>jayme0227</author>
	<datestamp>1257617640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Glad to see that you haven't even read what people are saying but rather making broad assumptions based on a very slim amount of "evidence."</p><p>If Microsoft did steal the code, then they should be punished. However, there really is no good evidence that they did indeed steal. Just because things are similar doesn't mean that one was stolen from another.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Glad to see that you have n't even read what people are saying but rather making broad assumptions based on a very slim amount of " evidence .
" If Microsoft did steal the code , then they should be punished .
However , there really is no good evidence that they did indeed steal .
Just because things are similar does n't mean that one was stolen from another .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Glad to see that you haven't even read what people are saying but rather making broad assumptions based on a very slim amount of "evidence.
"If Microsoft did steal the code, then they should be punished.
However, there really is no good evidence that they did indeed steal.
Just because things are similar doesn't mean that one was stolen from another.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30024154</id>
	<title>Re:no big deal</title>
	<author>man\_of\_mr\_e</author>
	<datestamp>1257711360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You really should read the GPL.  If you stop infringing, your license is reinstated.  Permanently if the copyright holder does not terminate your licese explicitly.</p><p>8. Termination.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><blockquote><div><p>However, if you cease all violation of this License, then your license from a particular copyright holder is reinstated (a) provisionally, unless and until the copyright holder explicitly and finally terminates your license, and (b) permanently, if the copyright holder fails to notify you of the violation by some reasonable means prior to 60 days after the cessation.</p><p>Moreover, your license from a particular copyright holder is reinstated permanently if the copyright holder notifies you of the violation by some reasonable means, this is the first time you have received notice of violation of this License (for any work) from that copyright holder, and you cure the violation prior to 30 days after your receipt of the notice.</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You really should read the GPL .
If you stop infringing , your license is reinstated .
Permanently if the copyright holder does not terminate your licese explicitly.8 .
Termination. ...However , if you cease all violation of this License , then your license from a particular copyright holder is reinstated ( a ) provisionally , unless and until the copyright holder explicitly and finally terminates your license , and ( b ) permanently , if the copyright holder fails to notify you of the violation by some reasonable means prior to 60 days after the cessation.Moreover , your license from a particular copyright holder is reinstated permanently if the copyright holder notifies you of the violation by some reasonable means , this is the first time you have received notice of violation of this License ( for any work ) from that copyright holder , and you cure the violation prior to 30 days after your receipt of the notice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You really should read the GPL.
If you stop infringing, your license is reinstated.
Permanently if the copyright holder does not terminate your licese explicitly.8.
Termination. ...However, if you cease all violation of this License, then your license from a particular copyright holder is reinstated (a) provisionally, unless and until the copyright holder explicitly and finally terminates your license, and (b) permanently, if the copyright holder fails to notify you of the violation by some reasonable means prior to 60 days after the cessation.Moreover, your license from a particular copyright holder is reinstated permanently if the copyright holder notifies you of the violation by some reasonable means, this is the first time you have received notice of violation of this License (for any work) from that copyright holder, and you cure the violation prior to 30 days after your receipt of the notice.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015054</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30023320</id>
	<title>Re:Knee jerk</title>
	<author>man\_of\_mr\_e</author>
	<datestamp>1257705480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sorry, what does "feedback"ing have to do with the GPL?</p><p>THe GPL does not require that you submit enhancements to anyone.  The MPL requires that, not the GPL.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sorry , what does " feedback " ing have to do with the GPL ? THe GPL does not require that you submit enhancements to anyone .
The MPL requires that , not the GPL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sorry, what does "feedback"ing have to do with the GPL?THe GPL does not require that you submit enhancements to anyone.
The MPL requires that, not the GPL.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015308</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30016718</id>
	<title>Re:Gpl violation</title>
	<author>kholburn</author>
	<datestamp>1257587940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>it's interesting how the FOSS movement delightfully and intentionally has made every piece of GPL3 code a trojan horse that can destroy a company's business model if a single programmer without the knowledge of the business copies a snippet of code to make his job easier.</p></div><p>
It's interesting how companies that produce proprietary code have made all their code a trojan horse that can destroy anyone who copies their code and uses it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's interesting how the FOSS movement delightfully and intentionally has made every piece of GPL3 code a trojan horse that can destroy a company 's business model if a single programmer without the knowledge of the business copies a snippet of code to make his job easier .
It 's interesting how companies that produce proprietary code have made all their code a trojan horse that can destroy anyone who copies their code and uses it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it's interesting how the FOSS movement delightfully and intentionally has made every piece of GPL3 code a trojan horse that can destroy a company's business model if a single programmer without the knowledge of the business copies a snippet of code to make his job easier.
It's interesting how companies that produce proprietary code have made all their code a trojan horse that can destroy anyone who copies their code and uses it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30026260</id>
	<title>Re:I have a boner</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257682740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What of it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What of it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What of it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014672</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30016532</id>
	<title>Re:It's .NET code</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1257586020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The source to the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET framework has been open for years, not free, but open.  I compiled it on FBSD in 2001 I think, maybe earlier than that.</p><p>Its been in the *BSD ports tree for almost a decade.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The source to the .NET framework has been open for years , not free , but open .
I compiled it on FBSD in 2001 I think , maybe earlier than that.Its been in the * BSD ports tree for almost a decade .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The source to the .NET framework has been open for years, not free, but open.
I compiled it on FBSD in 2001 I think, maybe earlier than that.Its been in the *BSD ports tree for almost a decade.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014978</id>
	<title>Re:It's not "stealing"...right?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257617520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think everyone here believes you can't steal music, first off.  I believe you can steal music, books, printed art, all kinds of artwork.  I come from a fairly serious artist background, and I know folks personally who have been scraping by for years on the meagre earnings of an average artist.  It's not a fun life.  </p><p>I believe large record syndicates are creeptastic and digital media is equation-changing, but that doesn't mean there's no evil in stealing non-physical works.  Artists, unless they happen to be the pretty-close-to-literally one in a million shot, make almost nothing and they make a huge difference in how livable a society is.  That's not changed by the fact that they can deliver media via digital channels; only people's expectations of the cost involved is changed.  The number of consumers shrinks, but so does their expected price point.  It's one of the reasons why there are still a lot of physical-media artists (the others including nobody's come up with good, cheap 3 dimensional sound, graphics, or texture delivery systems, physical media still work in some contexts, and art is large a physical act).</p><p>And if you can steal art, you can certainly steal code.  Of course, in this case it's probably going to have no repercussions because you'd have to educate people on the struggle of open source in terms that wouldn't make a lawyer cry before you could really even get into it, but those of us who've self-selected have at least a notion of the violation and its meaning.  And, happily, the irony - if MS really is using open source in its first "better" product in a long time, that's a fun little fact to know.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think everyone here believes you ca n't steal music , first off .
I believe you can steal music , books , printed art , all kinds of artwork .
I come from a fairly serious artist background , and I know folks personally who have been scraping by for years on the meagre earnings of an average artist .
It 's not a fun life .
I believe large record syndicates are creeptastic and digital media is equation-changing , but that does n't mean there 's no evil in stealing non-physical works .
Artists , unless they happen to be the pretty-close-to-literally one in a million shot , make almost nothing and they make a huge difference in how livable a society is .
That 's not changed by the fact that they can deliver media via digital channels ; only people 's expectations of the cost involved is changed .
The number of consumers shrinks , but so does their expected price point .
It 's one of the reasons why there are still a lot of physical-media artists ( the others including nobody 's come up with good , cheap 3 dimensional sound , graphics , or texture delivery systems , physical media still work in some contexts , and art is large a physical act ) .And if you can steal art , you can certainly steal code .
Of course , in this case it 's probably going to have no repercussions because you 'd have to educate people on the struggle of open source in terms that would n't make a lawyer cry before you could really even get into it , but those of us who 've self-selected have at least a notion of the violation and its meaning .
And , happily , the irony - if MS really is using open source in its first " better " product in a long time , that 's a fun little fact to know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think everyone here believes you can't steal music, first off.
I believe you can steal music, books, printed art, all kinds of artwork.
I come from a fairly serious artist background, and I know folks personally who have been scraping by for years on the meagre earnings of an average artist.
It's not a fun life.
I believe large record syndicates are creeptastic and digital media is equation-changing, but that doesn't mean there's no evil in stealing non-physical works.
Artists, unless they happen to be the pretty-close-to-literally one in a million shot, make almost nothing and they make a huge difference in how livable a society is.
That's not changed by the fact that they can deliver media via digital channels; only people's expectations of the cost involved is changed.
The number of consumers shrinks, but so does their expected price point.
It's one of the reasons why there are still a lot of physical-media artists (the others including nobody's come up with good, cheap 3 dimensional sound, graphics, or texture delivery systems, physical media still work in some contexts, and art is large a physical act).And if you can steal art, you can certainly steal code.
Of course, in this case it's probably going to have no repercussions because you'd have to educate people on the struggle of open source in terms that wouldn't make a lawyer cry before you could really even get into it, but those of us who've self-selected have at least a notion of the violation and its meaning.
And, happily, the irony - if MS really is using open source in its first "better" product in a long time, that's a fun little fact to know.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30016272</id>
	<title>Re:"Obviously lifted" not so obvious</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1257626400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've just written my first program, and I licensed it under the GPL. Guess what? A bunch of people have already ripped me off! So I can understand this guy's situation. Here's the source, BTW:<blockquote><div><p> <tt>#include &lt;stdio.h&gt;<br> <br>int main()<br>{<br>  printf( "Hello, world!\n" );<br>  return 0;<br>}</tt></p></div> </blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've just written my first program , and I licensed it under the GPL .
Guess what ?
A bunch of people have already ripped me off !
So I can understand this guy 's situation .
Here 's the source , BTW : # include int main ( ) { printf ( " Hello , world ! \ n " ) ; return 0 ; }</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've just written my first program, and I licensed it under the GPL.
Guess what?
A bunch of people have already ripped me off!
So I can understand this guy's situation.
Here's the source, BTW: #include  int main(){  printf( "Hello, world!\n" );  return 0;} 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30017080</id>
	<title>Re:Knee jerk</title>
	<author>winnetou</author>
	<datestamp>1257591420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, it is not just "a" ReadByte snippet. It is a ReadByte snippet which (modulo: variable-names; bracketing of if-clauses; expansion of macros; and whitespace) is equal to the ImageMaster code, with one possible exception (MaxExtents doesn't look like a macro, if it is an element of an enum, it isn't an exception).
<br>
Code which does the same, will look the same. But there will often be differences at details, even differences which compilers don't wipe away. And that is why I am surprised by the disassembled code, "index + 2 &gt; 2048" is equal to "index &gt; 2046" (and "index + 6 &gt; 2048" is equal to "index &gt; 2042") if one ignores overflow. Bug-to-bug compatibility is relevant, but I am at a loss why creating map/mp would be important (unreachable memory is only useful if other buggy code looks at that memory, and it is initialized if 2042 &lt;= index &lt; 2046)
<br>
This is bla-bla; I wrote it, but didn't check it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , it is not just " a " ReadByte snippet .
It is a ReadByte snippet which ( modulo : variable-names ; bracketing of if-clauses ; expansion of macros ; and whitespace ) is equal to the ImageMaster code , with one possible exception ( MaxExtents does n't look like a macro , if it is an element of an enum , it is n't an exception ) .
Code which does the same , will look the same .
But there will often be differences at details , even differences which compilers do n't wipe away .
And that is why I am surprised by the disassembled code , " index + 2 &gt; 2048 " is equal to " index &gt; 2046 " ( and " index + 6 &gt; 2048 " is equal to " index &gt; 2042 " ) if one ignores overflow .
Bug-to-bug compatibility is relevant , but I am at a loss why creating map/mp would be important ( unreachable memory is only useful if other buggy code looks at that memory , and it is initialized if 2042 This is bla-bla ; I wrote it , but did n't check it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, it is not just "a" ReadByte snippet.
It is a ReadByte snippet which (modulo: variable-names; bracketing of if-clauses; expansion of macros; and whitespace) is equal to the ImageMaster code, with one possible exception (MaxExtents doesn't look like a macro, if it is an element of an enum, it isn't an exception).
Code which does the same, will look the same.
But there will often be differences at details, even differences which compilers don't wipe away.
And that is why I am surprised by the disassembled code, "index + 2 &gt; 2048" is equal to "index &gt; 2046" (and "index + 6 &gt; 2048" is equal to "index &gt; 2042") if one ignores overflow.
Bug-to-bug compatibility is relevant, but I am at a loss why creating map/mp would be important (unreachable memory is only useful if other buggy code looks at that memory, and it is initialized if 2042 
This is bla-bla; I wrote it, but didn't check it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014706</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30017470</id>
	<title>Re:It's not "stealing"...right?</title>
	<author>mdielmann</author>
	<datestamp>1257595560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What you're saying is generally true of anyone.  I like coding, and am aware that someone could steal my copyright, if I actually cared.  In point of fact, almost everything I do is work for hire, so I've already sold it (and only once, which is how work-for-hire works).The guy at McDonalds may just be flipping burgers, but I'm grateful when I want a quick and reasonably cheap meal (I said nothing of quality<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P).<br>But none of that makes artists, burger-flippers, grocery-baggers, or anyone else more special than the average person.  If you're not making 'enough' money, then get a different job.  If you love your work, then accept that you're paying a price for your quality of life.<br>Sure, not a lot of people make it big, in any industry.  And if you suck at the work you love, then get used to not having much money.  Gates did well in running a tech business (I wouldn't say ethically, but financially successfully).  While I'm in the same industry, there are about 6 orders of magnitude between my net worth and his.  I'm okay with that, because I enjoy coding and it feeds my kids.<br>And you can't steal ideas, which is what music, code, and digital data all fall under.  Your gain is not my loss - I will have just as much as I had before.  Whether it's legal or not is a wholly different matter.  If I went to the Louvre and stole the Mona Lisa, I'd be charged with theft.  If a made a perfect copy, with hours of my own labour and talent, it would be mine - I'm pretty sure copyright has expired on it (there may be some laws there, but I don't think they apply to works that old).  If I sold that copy as "the Mona Lisa", that would be fraud, even if it was identical to the Mona Lisa down to the last molecule.</p><p>Oh, and MS had been using the BSD TCP stack up until recently.  The difference is, the license there allows completely unfettered copying.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What you 're saying is generally true of anyone .
I like coding , and am aware that someone could steal my copyright , if I actually cared .
In point of fact , almost everything I do is work for hire , so I 've already sold it ( and only once , which is how work-for-hire works ) .The guy at McDonalds may just be flipping burgers , but I 'm grateful when I want a quick and reasonably cheap meal ( I said nothing of quality : P ) .But none of that makes artists , burger-flippers , grocery-baggers , or anyone else more special than the average person .
If you 're not making 'enough ' money , then get a different job .
If you love your work , then accept that you 're paying a price for your quality of life.Sure , not a lot of people make it big , in any industry .
And if you suck at the work you love , then get used to not having much money .
Gates did well in running a tech business ( I would n't say ethically , but financially successfully ) .
While I 'm in the same industry , there are about 6 orders of magnitude between my net worth and his .
I 'm okay with that , because I enjoy coding and it feeds my kids.And you ca n't steal ideas , which is what music , code , and digital data all fall under .
Your gain is not my loss - I will have just as much as I had before .
Whether it 's legal or not is a wholly different matter .
If I went to the Louvre and stole the Mona Lisa , I 'd be charged with theft .
If a made a perfect copy , with hours of my own labour and talent , it would be mine - I 'm pretty sure copyright has expired on it ( there may be some laws there , but I do n't think they apply to works that old ) .
If I sold that copy as " the Mona Lisa " , that would be fraud , even if it was identical to the Mona Lisa down to the last molecule.Oh , and MS had been using the BSD TCP stack up until recently .
The difference is , the license there allows completely unfettered copying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What you're saying is generally true of anyone.
I like coding, and am aware that someone could steal my copyright, if I actually cared.
In point of fact, almost everything I do is work for hire, so I've already sold it (and only once, which is how work-for-hire works).The guy at McDonalds may just be flipping burgers, but I'm grateful when I want a quick and reasonably cheap meal (I said nothing of quality :P).But none of that makes artists, burger-flippers, grocery-baggers, or anyone else more special than the average person.
If you're not making 'enough' money, then get a different job.
If you love your work, then accept that you're paying a price for your quality of life.Sure, not a lot of people make it big, in any industry.
And if you suck at the work you love, then get used to not having much money.
Gates did well in running a tech business (I wouldn't say ethically, but financially successfully).
While I'm in the same industry, there are about 6 orders of magnitude between my net worth and his.
I'm okay with that, because I enjoy coding and it feeds my kids.And you can't steal ideas, which is what music, code, and digital data all fall under.
Your gain is not my loss - I will have just as much as I had before.
Whether it's legal or not is a wholly different matter.
If I went to the Louvre and stole the Mona Lisa, I'd be charged with theft.
If a made a perfect copy, with hours of my own labour and talent, it would be mine - I'm pretty sure copyright has expired on it (there may be some laws there, but I don't think they apply to works that old).
If I sold that copy as "the Mona Lisa", that would be fraud, even if it was identical to the Mona Lisa down to the last molecule.Oh, and MS had been using the BSD TCP stack up until recently.
The difference is, the license there allows completely unfettered copying.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014968</id>
	<title>They are both violating my copyright</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1257617460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've written subroutines called "ReadByte" several times, so obviously both the Microsoft code and the GPL code is in violation of my company's copyright! (BTW, if the ReadBytes routine doesn't have a buffer size parameter and return the actual number of bytes read, it is bad code.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've written subroutines called " ReadByte " several times , so obviously both the Microsoft code and the GPL code is in violation of my company 's copyright !
( BTW , if the ReadBytes routine does n't have a buffer size parameter and return the actual number of bytes read , it is bad code .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've written subroutines called "ReadByte" several times, so obviously both the Microsoft code and the GPL code is in violation of my company's copyright!
(BTW, if the ReadBytes routine doesn't have a buffer size parameter and return the actual number of bytes read, it is bad code.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30016286</id>
	<title>Re:It's not "stealing"...right?</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1257626580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No shit, man. Your comment is exactly the one I was about to make. It's not theft, even if one doesn't like who's doing the unauthorized distribution.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No shit , man .
Your comment is exactly the one I was about to make .
It 's not theft , even if one does n't like who 's doing the unauthorized distribution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No shit, man.
Your comment is exactly the one I was about to make.
It's not theft, even if one doesn't like who's doing the unauthorized distribution.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014954</id>
	<title>That's his evidence?</title>
	<author>Ironsides</author>
	<datestamp>1257617400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seriously, what he shows to be evidence looks like code that was written straight from reading the ISO disk image specification.  Next up, school math class accused of mass cheating for solving math problems in similar ways.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , what he shows to be evidence looks like code that was written straight from reading the ISO disk image specification .
Next up , school math class accused of mass cheating for solving math problems in similar ways .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, what he shows to be evidence looks like code that was written straight from reading the ISO disk image specification.
Next up, school math class accused of mass cheating for solving math problems in similar ways.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014908</id>
	<title>In other news...</title>
	<author>jayme0227</author>
	<datestamp>1257616980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Goatbert engages in anal stretching. My evidence: the names are very similar.</p><p>Wait, you mean similarities DON'T mean that they are the same thing? Damn. I thought I was on to something.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Goatbert engages in anal stretching .
My evidence : the names are very similar.Wait , you mean similarities DO N'T mean that they are the same thing ?
Damn. I thought I was on to something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Goatbert engages in anal stretching.
My evidence: the names are very similar.Wait, you mean similarities DON'T mean that they are the same thing?
Damn. I thought I was on to something.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015212</id>
	<title>Re:"Obviously lifted" not so obvious</title>
	<author>homesnatch</author>
	<datestamp>1257618960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No...  the ReadBytes function was just one of the examples...  The author has since replaced the ReadBytes example with another called "ReadLogicalDescriptors"
<br> <br>
<a href="http://www.withinwindows.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/example1.png" title="withinwindows.com">http://www.withinwindows.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/example1.png</a> [withinwindows.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>No... the ReadBytes function was just one of the examples... The author has since replaced the ReadBytes example with another called " ReadLogicalDescriptors " http : //www.withinwindows.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/example1.png [ withinwindows.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No...  the ReadBytes function was just one of the examples...  The author has since replaced the ReadBytes example with another called "ReadLogicalDescriptors"
 
http://www.withinwindows.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/example1.png [withinwindows.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015348</id>
	<title>"borrow"?</title>
	<author>v1</author>
	<datestamp>1257619800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Did Microsoft <b>Borrow</b>...</i></p><p>Microsoft <i>borrows</i>, everyone else <i>steals</i>?</p><p>I wonder if I can try that with the RIAA/BSA?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did Microsoft Borrow...Microsoft borrows , everyone else steals ? I wonder if I can try that with the RIAA/BSA ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did Microsoft Borrow...Microsoft borrows, everyone else steals?I wonder if I can try that with the RIAA/BSA?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015310</id>
	<title>Re:Gpl violation</title>
	<author>arose</author>
	<datestamp>1257619560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>True, and it's interesting how the FOSS movement delightfully and intentionally has made every piece of GPL3 code a trojan horse that can destroy a company's business model if a single programmer without the knowledge of the business copies a snippet of code to make his job easier.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Not really, they just don't accept the license and deal with the copyright violation instead, just like they would if the programmer copied a piece of proprietary software.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>True , and it 's interesting how the FOSS movement delightfully and intentionally has made every piece of GPL3 code a trojan horse that can destroy a company 's business model if a single programmer without the knowledge of the business copies a snippet of code to make his job easier .
Not really , they just do n't accept the license and deal with the copyright violation instead , just like they would if the programmer copied a piece of proprietary software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>True, and it's interesting how the FOSS movement delightfully and intentionally has made every piece of GPL3 code a trojan horse that can destroy a company's business model if a single programmer without the knowledge of the business copies a snippet of code to make his job easier.
Not really, they just don't accept the license and deal with the copyright violation instead, just like they would if the programmer copied a piece of proprietary software.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015026</id>
	<title>Re:Knee jerk</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257617940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh no.  Evidence is not required in this case.   This failure to comply with the GPL means that Microsoft is governed by Copyright law in this matter.

</p><p>Their Internet service provider must be notified so that their Internet connection can be terminated.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh no .
Evidence is not required in this case .
This failure to comply with the GPL means that Microsoft is governed by Copyright law in this matter .
Their Internet service provider must be notified so that their Internet connection can be terminated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh no.
Evidence is not required in this case.
This failure to comply with the GPL means that Microsoft is governed by Copyright law in this matter.
Their Internet service provider must be notified so that their Internet connection can be terminated.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014706</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014910</id>
	<title>Re:"Obviously lifted" not so obvious</title>
	<author>rescendent</author>
	<datestamp>1257616980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If its reading a standard header of a standard format (e.g. iso) I assume there aren't that many variations - without starting to write weird unnecessary code</htmltext>
<tokenext>If its reading a standard header of a standard format ( e.g .
iso ) I assume there are n't that many variations - without starting to write weird unnecessary code</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If its reading a standard header of a standard format (e.g.
iso) I assume there aren't that many variations - without starting to write weird unnecessary code</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30016140</id>
	<title>Re:"Obviously lifted" not so obvious</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1257625320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That example is awfully weak too.  Again, it's just parsing a header.  There's only one logical way to read a header so it's not surprising different code to do so would be very similar.  If that's the best he can come up with, there's nothing to see.</p><p>I bet if you go through random GPL projects you can find all kinds of similar examples where the GPL code is similar to preexisting non-GPL code.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That example is awfully weak too .
Again , it 's just parsing a header .
There 's only one logical way to read a header so it 's not surprising different code to do so would be very similar .
If that 's the best he can come up with , there 's nothing to see.I bet if you go through random GPL projects you can find all kinds of similar examples where the GPL code is similar to preexisting non-GPL code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That example is awfully weak too.
Again, it's just parsing a header.
There's only one logical way to read a header so it's not surprising different code to do so would be very similar.
If that's the best he can come up with, there's nothing to see.I bet if you go through random GPL projects you can find all kinds of similar examples where the GPL code is similar to preexisting non-GPL code.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015042</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014732</id>
	<title>Gpl violation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257615360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Microsoft has had open source code earlier also. But it's been licenced with bsd kind of licence.
The problem is that if there are gpl-licenced code taken (doesn't need permission of project owners) microsoft has to give all changes they made to public.
Gpl can also touch so depends what they've done with/to that they might also need to distribute more code of theirs.

There is also organisation who's trying to track down and sue corporations violating OS licences (can't remember name), maybe they get some job to do.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft has had open source code earlier also .
But it 's been licenced with bsd kind of licence .
The problem is that if there are gpl-licenced code taken ( does n't need permission of project owners ) microsoft has to give all changes they made to public .
Gpl can also touch so depends what they 've done with/to that they might also need to distribute more code of theirs .
There is also organisation who 's trying to track down and sue corporations violating OS licences ( ca n't remember name ) , maybe they get some job to do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft has had open source code earlier also.
But it's been licenced with bsd kind of licence.
The problem is that if there are gpl-licenced code taken (doesn't need permission of project owners) microsoft has to give all changes they made to public.
Gpl can also touch so depends what they've done with/to that they might also need to distribute more code of theirs.
There is also organisation who's trying to track down and sue corporations violating OS licences (can't remember name), maybe they get some job to do.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015568</id>
	<title>Re:It's not "stealing"...right?</title>
	<author>Sir\_Lewk</author>
	<datestamp>1257621480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sure you can steal a book, just like you can steal a CD.  I however do not believe that it is possible to steal music, just like I don't believe it's possible to steal a story.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure you can steal a book , just like you can steal a CD .
I however do not believe that it is possible to steal music , just like I do n't believe it 's possible to steal a story .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure you can steal a book, just like you can steal a CD.
I however do not believe that it is possible to steal music, just like I don't believe it's possible to steal a story.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30016518</id>
	<title>Re:"Obviously lifted" not so obvious</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1257585900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... you don't have to reverse engineer this particular part, its included in the source code provided with VisualStudio if you bother to look hard enough.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except ... you do n't have to reverse engineer this particular part , its included in the source code provided with VisualStudio if you bother to look hard enough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except ... you don't have to reverse engineer this particular part, its included in the source code provided with VisualStudio if you bother to look hard enough.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015042</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30016934</id>
	<title>Re:It's not "stealing"...right?</title>
	<author>migla</author>
	<datestamp>1257589860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The obvious answer to the starving artist problem is not about any kind of restrictions on copying.</p><p>Just give every living person enough money to get by and those who are serious about their art will lead creative lives and benefit greatly all the rest of us.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The obvious answer to the starving artist problem is not about any kind of restrictions on copying.Just give every living person enough money to get by and those who are serious about their art will lead creative lives and benefit greatly all the rest of us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The obvious answer to the starving artist problem is not about any kind of restrictions on copying.Just give every living person enough money to get by and those who are serious about their art will lead creative lives and benefit greatly all the rest of us.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30016330</id>
	<title>Re:It's .NET code</title>
	<author>Jugalator</author>
	<datestamp>1257627120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET code. It's already "Open Source" by virtue of tools like Reflector [red-gate.com] existing.</p></div><p>Are you Chinese?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:o</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's .NET code .
It 's already " Open Source " by virtue of tools like Reflector [ red-gate.com ] existing.Are you Chinese ?
: o</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's .NET code.
It's already "Open Source" by virtue of tools like Reflector [red-gate.com] existing.Are you Chinese?
:o
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015880</id>
	<title>Re:It's not "stealing"...right?</title>
	<author>gnasher719</author>
	<datestamp>1257623400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This is a free tool to transfer Windows 7 to a different installation medium. Even if this was infringement (and I'm skeptical on that point, the functions "infringed" look pretty standard and trivial to reimplement), they still aren't making a profit on this "theft." The OS is sold as is, they're just providing an additional tool to work with it for free, and separately.</p></div><p>1. It doesn't matter whether Microsoft charges money for that particular utility or not. The utility is a tiny part of a huge set of software that is meant to make Windows more useable to customers, which means more people will buy Windows, which means more money for Microsoft. If Microsoft \_has\_ copied code, then it was for commercial purposes. <br> <br>
2. Similarities in code don't mean copying happened. It would be even legal for Microsoft to have identical code, as long as it wasn't copied. The problem would be that it would be very hard to convince a judge that you ended up with identical code without copying. But if you have a very well-defined task, like parsing a file in some well-defined format, then it is quite likely that two independent developers would create very, very similar code without any copying.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a free tool to transfer Windows 7 to a different installation medium .
Even if this was infringement ( and I 'm skeptical on that point , the functions " infringed " look pretty standard and trivial to reimplement ) , they still are n't making a profit on this " theft .
" The OS is sold as is , they 're just providing an additional tool to work with it for free , and separately.1 .
It does n't matter whether Microsoft charges money for that particular utility or not .
The utility is a tiny part of a huge set of software that is meant to make Windows more useable to customers , which means more people will buy Windows , which means more money for Microsoft .
If Microsoft \ _has \ _ copied code , then it was for commercial purposes .
2. Similarities in code do n't mean copying happened .
It would be even legal for Microsoft to have identical code , as long as it was n't copied .
The problem would be that it would be very hard to convince a judge that you ended up with identical code without copying .
But if you have a very well-defined task , like parsing a file in some well-defined format , then it is quite likely that two independent developers would create very , very similar code without any copying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a free tool to transfer Windows 7 to a different installation medium.
Even if this was infringement (and I'm skeptical on that point, the functions "infringed" look pretty standard and trivial to reimplement), they still aren't making a profit on this "theft.
" The OS is sold as is, they're just providing an additional tool to work with it for free, and separately.1.
It doesn't matter whether Microsoft charges money for that particular utility or not.
The utility is a tiny part of a huge set of software that is meant to make Windows more useable to customers, which means more people will buy Windows, which means more money for Microsoft.
If Microsoft \_has\_ copied code, then it was for commercial purposes.
2. Similarities in code don't mean copying happened.
It would be even legal for Microsoft to have identical code, as long as it wasn't copied.
The problem would be that it would be very hard to convince a judge that you ended up with identical code without copying.
But if you have a very well-defined task, like parsing a file in some well-defined format, then it is quite likely that two independent developers would create very, very similar code without any copying.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30024746</id>
	<title>Re:Knee jerk</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257672300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Looks like it was massaged at least a bit, probably just to fit in with the local code environment not to obscure it.</p><p>I disagree, i think that the the main difference between dissasebled code and ImageMagic source is that the disassembler cannot know if braces have been around in the original code. Or if a special number has been stored as const variable somewhere. And so-on. For example.</p><p>if ( position + 2 &gt; constSize )<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; return false;</p><p>Once disassebled would probably become something like:</p><p>if ( position + 2 &gt; 2048 ) {<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; return false;<br>}</p><p>If you bear this in mind, the examples in shown look indeed wery similar.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Looks like it was massaged at least a bit , probably just to fit in with the local code environment not to obscure it.I disagree , i think that the the main difference between dissasebled code and ImageMagic source is that the disassembler can not know if braces have been around in the original code .
Or if a special number has been stored as const variable somewhere .
And so-on .
For example.if ( position + 2 &gt; constSize )       return false ; Once disassebled would probably become something like : if ( position + 2 &gt; 2048 ) {       return false ; } If you bear this in mind , the examples in shown look indeed wery similar .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Looks like it was massaged at least a bit, probably just to fit in with the local code environment not to obscure it.I disagree, i think that the the main difference between dissasebled code and ImageMagic source is that the disassembler cannot know if braces have been around in the original code.
Or if a special number has been stored as const variable somewhere.
And so-on.
For example.if ( position + 2 &gt; constSize )
      return false;Once disassebled would probably become something like:if ( position + 2 &gt; 2048 ) {
      return false;}If you bear this in mind, the examples in shown look indeed wery similar.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015308</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015080</id>
	<title>Re:"Obviously lifted" not so obvious</title>
	<author>ShadowRangerRIT</author>
	<datestamp>1257618300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>You misunderstand copyright.  Copyright protects a particular expression of an idea, not the idea itself.  You're thinking of patents, which are completely different.  The GPL is copyright based, not patent based.  A perfectly valid way to bypass the GPL is to, source unseen, re-implement the function to mimic the behavior of the desired GPL function.  So no, if Microsoft happened to write the exact same function from scratch without reference to GPL source code, it's not infringement.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You misunderstand copyright .
Copyright protects a particular expression of an idea , not the idea itself .
You 're thinking of patents , which are completely different .
The GPL is copyright based , not patent based .
A perfectly valid way to bypass the GPL is to , source unseen , re-implement the function to mimic the behavior of the desired GPL function .
So no , if Microsoft happened to write the exact same function from scratch without reference to GPL source code , it 's not infringement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You misunderstand copyright.
Copyright protects a particular expression of an idea, not the idea itself.
You're thinking of patents, which are completely different.
The GPL is copyright based, not patent based.
A perfectly valid way to bypass the GPL is to, source unseen, re-implement the function to mimic the behavior of the desired GPL function.
So no, if Microsoft happened to write the exact same function from scratch without reference to GPL source code, it's not infringement.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014998</id>
	<title>Doesn't sound significant</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257617760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Even if true, surely Microsoft would just need to perform minor corrective action (replace the code promptly and discipline or fire those responsible for inserting the stolen code). The software isn't a significant part of the system. Nor does it seem to be a difficult bit of code. So you can't really claim that Microsoft is making boatloads off of or even just saving money by stealing the code. And I think MS probably could make a good argument for saying that either they had a rogue developer or someone made a terrible mistake in inserting the code. It just doesn't look like "egg on face" to me unless the replacement of the code results in some high publicity drama like a recall of the OS.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if true , surely Microsoft would just need to perform minor corrective action ( replace the code promptly and discipline or fire those responsible for inserting the stolen code ) .
The software is n't a significant part of the system .
Nor does it seem to be a difficult bit of code .
So you ca n't really claim that Microsoft is making boatloads off of or even just saving money by stealing the code .
And I think MS probably could make a good argument for saying that either they had a rogue developer or someone made a terrible mistake in inserting the code .
It just does n't look like " egg on face " to me unless the replacement of the code results in some high publicity drama like a recall of the OS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if true, surely Microsoft would just need to perform minor corrective action (replace the code promptly and discipline or fire those responsible for inserting the stolen code).
The software isn't a significant part of the system.
Nor does it seem to be a difficult bit of code.
So you can't really claim that Microsoft is making boatloads off of or even just saving money by stealing the code.
And I think MS probably could make a good argument for saying that either they had a rogue developer or someone made a terrible mistake in inserting the code.
It just doesn't look like "egg on face" to me unless the replacement of the code results in some high publicity drama like a recall of the OS.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014952</id>
	<title>Re:"Obviously lifted" not so obvious</title>
	<author>tygreen</author>
	<datestamp>1257617400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>and as I understand the way copyright currently works,  if a piece of code DOES the same thing, it's infringement.  different language isn't a valid defense.  but, Microsoft has stolen code before and not changed it just added it as is.     Personally, I'll be REALLY happy if the Supreme Court does rule that software is not patentable and is free like free speech (i.e. it still requires some responsibility on your part and your can't just yell in the middle of a public place that someone is an effing  when there are no facts)  but that's my 2 cents.</htmltext>
<tokenext>and as I understand the way copyright currently works , if a piece of code DOES the same thing , it 's infringement .
different language is n't a valid defense .
but , Microsoft has stolen code before and not changed it just added it as is .
Personally , I 'll be REALLY happy if the Supreme Court does rule that software is not patentable and is free like free speech ( i.e .
it still requires some responsibility on your part and your ca n't just yell in the middle of a public place that someone is an effing when there are no facts ) but that 's my 2 cents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and as I understand the way copyright currently works,  if a piece of code DOES the same thing, it's infringement.
different language isn't a valid defense.
but, Microsoft has stolen code before and not changed it just added it as is.
Personally, I'll be REALLY happy if the Supreme Court does rule that software is not patentable and is free like free speech (i.e.
it still requires some responsibility on your part and your can't just yell in the middle of a public place that someone is an effing  when there are no facts)  but that's my 2 cents.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015132</id>
	<title>Re:Gpl violation</title>
	<author>X0563511</author>
	<datestamp>1257618540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't change the code, and you have no changes to publicize.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't change the code , and you have no changes to publicize .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't change the code, and you have no changes to publicize.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30016846</id>
	<title>Re:"Obviously lifted" not so obvious</title>
	<author>peektwice</author>
	<datestamp>1257589140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The author seems to have added a different <a href="http://www.withinwindows.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/example1.png" title="withinwindows.com">example</a> [withinwindows.com] that gives more credence to his claims.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The author seems to have added a different example [ withinwindows.com ] that gives more credence to his claims .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The author seems to have added a different example [withinwindows.com] that gives more credence to his claims.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30018554</id>
	<title>Re:"Obviously lifted" not so obvious</title>
	<author>vikstar</author>
	<datestamp>1257606060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And then they'll patent it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And then they 'll patent it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And then they'll patent it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015042</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015048</id>
	<title>Re:It's not "stealing"...right?</title>
	<author>impaledsunset</author>
	<datestamp>1257618120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, as the headline states, they borrowed it. And they promised to return it when they are done.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , as the headline states , they borrowed it .
And they promised to return it when they are done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, as the headline states, they borrowed it.
And they promised to return it when they are done.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015660</id>
	<title>Re:They are both violating my copyright</title>
	<author>The MAZZTer</author>
	<datestamp>1257622080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I like your "BTW".  It implies both the ImageMagik devs and Microsoft managed to both make the same mistakes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I like your " BTW " .
It implies both the ImageMagik devs and Microsoft managed to both make the same mistakes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like your "BTW".
It implies both the ImageMagik devs and Microsoft managed to both make the same mistakes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014968</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015070</id>
	<title>Re:It's .NET code</title>
	<author>Timothy Brownawell</author>
	<datestamp>1257618240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET code.  It's already "Open Source" by virtue of tools like <a href="http://www.red-gate.com/products/reflector/" title="red-gate.com" rel="nofollow">Reflector</a> [red-gate.com] existing.</p></div><p>I do not think that that is what "Open Source" is generally taken to mean.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's .NET code .
It 's already " Open Source " by virtue of tools like Reflector [ red-gate.com ] existing.I do not think that that is what " Open Source " is generally taken to mean .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's .NET code.
It's already "Open Source" by virtue of tools like Reflector [red-gate.com] existing.I do not think that that is what "Open Source" is generally taken to mean.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30030736</id>
	<title>Re:"Obviously lifted" not so obvious</title>
	<author>tokul</author>
	<datestamp>1257766980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>#include <br>
<br>
int main()<br>
{<br>
printf( "Hello, world!\n" );<br>
return 0;<br>
}</p></div>
</blockquote><p>1974 Bell Laboratories internal memorandum by Brian Kernighan, Programming in C: A Tutorial

</p><p>Your point might be valid for basic code, but what you say when somebody takes your code, removes copyrights, but does not remove comments. Then you look at third party code and you see same function names, same directory/file structure and your own lines of comments in third party code.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext># include int main ( ) { printf ( " Hello , world ! \ n " ) ; return 0 ; } 1974 Bell Laboratories internal memorandum by Brian Kernighan , Programming in C : A Tutorial Your point might be valid for basic code , but what you say when somebody takes your code , removes copyrights , but does not remove comments .
Then you look at third party code and you see same function names , same directory/file structure and your own lines of comments in third party code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>#include 

int main()
{
printf( "Hello, world!\n" );
return 0;
}
1974 Bell Laboratories internal memorandum by Brian Kernighan, Programming in C: A Tutorial

Your point might be valid for basic code, but what you say when somebody takes your code, removes copyrights, but does not remove comments.
Then you look at third party code and you see same function names, same directory/file structure and your own lines of comments in third party code.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30016272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30016372</id>
	<title>Re:It's not "stealing"...right?</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1257627480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, what if we set up a test where you sell me a digital object of yours, and then I flip a coin and if heads, someone else makes an unauthorized copy from me. At that point, you tell me whether your digital object has been stolen from you. If the unauthorized copy is really theft, you shouldn't have to do more than examine your belongings to see whether any are missing, whether you will be deprived the use of your belongings. Whenever I've had anything stolen from me, I couldn't use the object anymore, because it was no longer in my possession.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , what if we set up a test where you sell me a digital object of yours , and then I flip a coin and if heads , someone else makes an unauthorized copy from me .
At that point , you tell me whether your digital object has been stolen from you .
If the unauthorized copy is really theft , you should n't have to do more than examine your belongings to see whether any are missing , whether you will be deprived the use of your belongings .
Whenever I 've had anything stolen from me , I could n't use the object anymore , because it was no longer in my possession .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, what if we set up a test where you sell me a digital object of yours, and then I flip a coin and if heads, someone else makes an unauthorized copy from me.
At that point, you tell me whether your digital object has been stolen from you.
If the unauthorized copy is really theft, you shouldn't have to do more than examine your belongings to see whether any are missing, whether you will be deprived the use of your belongings.
Whenever I've had anything stolen from me, I couldn't use the object anymore, because it was no longer in my possession.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014932</id>
	<title>Re:It's not "stealing"...right?</title>
	<author>mweather</author>
	<datestamp>1257617220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm fairly sure that by accepting money for someone else's property, you are stealing money from that person, whether you deprived that person of the property or not.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm fairly sure that by accepting money for someone else 's property , you are stealing money from that person , whether you deprived that person of the property or not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm fairly sure that by accepting money for someone else's property, you are stealing money from that person, whether you deprived that person of the property or not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30016404</id>
	<title>Re:"Obviously lifted" not so obvious</title>
	<author>Vahokif</author>
	<datestamp>1257584700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But his "proof" is disassembled right? That means he named all the local variables himself according to what the thinks the source was. Also there's no reason two pieces of code parsing the same file format would look any different.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But his " proof " is disassembled right ?
That means he named all the local variables himself according to what the thinks the source was .
Also there 's no reason two pieces of code parsing the same file format would look any different .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But his "proof" is disassembled right?
That means he named all the local variables himself according to what the thinks the source was.
Also there's no reason two pieces of code parsing the same file format would look any different.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015042</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30020122</id>
	<title>Re:It's not "stealing"...right?</title>
	<author>ignavus</author>
	<datestamp>1257676500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And, happily, the irony - if MS really is using open source in its first "better" product in a long time, that's a fun little fact to know.</p></div><p>"Open Source. So good, even Microsoft is stealing it!"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And , happily , the irony - if MS really is using open source in its first " better " product in a long time , that 's a fun little fact to know .
" Open Source .
So good , even Microsoft is stealing it !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And, happily, the irony - if MS really is using open source in its first "better" product in a long time, that's a fun little fact to know.
"Open Source.
So good, even Microsoft is stealing it!
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015566</id>
	<title>Re:"Obviously lifted" not so obvious</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257621420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>But the longer you plug away at it, the more you realize that it's just code. Nothing special is really going on. You're mostly moving data from one area of memory to another. It's almost a form of Nirvana once you reach this point.</i></p><p>You're so close to <i>real</i> computing nirvana, but you're still thinking like a procedural programmer.  It goes further than "it's just code".  The following are all equivalent (if a bit vague -- details are left to the reader.  It's a fun exercise):</p><p>1.  There is no substantive difference between data and code.  Similarly, there is no substantive difference between a "function" and a "program".<br>2.  Every program is an interpreter for some language.<br>3.  Every program is composed of a parser, a functor on the underlying type, and a renderer.<br>4.  Every program unfolds a data structure/value, applies a functor the the unfolded data structure, and folds the resulting data structure.<br>5.  Every program, under the decomposition described in 4, is a monad.  (Of course, this is why Haskell uses the IO monad to represent IO "actions" from the program's perspective.  The IO monad is doing part of the parsing/rendering for us.  Haskell's pattern matching facilities do some basic parsing for simple function calls)<br>6.  Every monad defines semantics for evaluating a type.  (So every program is a set of semantics for evaluating a type)<br>7.  The computation of any program is the performance of a constructive mathematical proof.</p><p>Getting from 6 to 7 is not too hard, but requires some category theory even to guide intuition.  You basically need to map (input, output) pairs to (input, output, Bool) values and project down into the third coordinate to make  new monad (an "interpretation") for the data structure in terms of Boolean values.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But the longer you plug away at it , the more you realize that it 's just code .
Nothing special is really going on .
You 're mostly moving data from one area of memory to another .
It 's almost a form of Nirvana once you reach this point.You 're so close to real computing nirvana , but you 're still thinking like a procedural programmer .
It goes further than " it 's just code " .
The following are all equivalent ( if a bit vague -- details are left to the reader .
It 's a fun exercise ) : 1 .
There is no substantive difference between data and code .
Similarly , there is no substantive difference between a " function " and a " program " .2 .
Every program is an interpreter for some language.3 .
Every program is composed of a parser , a functor on the underlying type , and a renderer.4 .
Every program unfolds a data structure/value , applies a functor the the unfolded data structure , and folds the resulting data structure.5 .
Every program , under the decomposition described in 4 , is a monad .
( Of course , this is why Haskell uses the IO monad to represent IO " actions " from the program 's perspective .
The IO monad is doing part of the parsing/rendering for us .
Haskell 's pattern matching facilities do some basic parsing for simple function calls ) 6 .
Every monad defines semantics for evaluating a type .
( So every program is a set of semantics for evaluating a type ) 7 .
The computation of any program is the performance of a constructive mathematical proof.Getting from 6 to 7 is not too hard , but requires some category theory even to guide intuition .
You basically need to map ( input , output ) pairs to ( input , output , Bool ) values and project down into the third coordinate to make new monad ( an " interpretation " ) for the data structure in terms of Boolean values .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But the longer you plug away at it, the more you realize that it's just code.
Nothing special is really going on.
You're mostly moving data from one area of memory to another.
It's almost a form of Nirvana once you reach this point.You're so close to real computing nirvana, but you're still thinking like a procedural programmer.
It goes further than "it's just code".
The following are all equivalent (if a bit vague -- details are left to the reader.
It's a fun exercise):1.
There is no substantive difference between data and code.
Similarly, there is no substantive difference between a "function" and a "program".2.
Every program is an interpreter for some language.3.
Every program is composed of a parser, a functor on the underlying type, and a renderer.4.
Every program unfolds a data structure/value, applies a functor the the unfolded data structure, and folds the resulting data structure.5.
Every program, under the decomposition described in 4, is a monad.
(Of course, this is why Haskell uses the IO monad to represent IO "actions" from the program's perspective.
The IO monad is doing part of the parsing/rendering for us.
Haskell's pattern matching facilities do some basic parsing for simple function calls)6.
Every monad defines semantics for evaluating a type.
(So every program is a set of semantics for evaluating a type)7.
The computation of any program is the performance of a constructive mathematical proof.Getting from 6 to 7 is not too hard, but requires some category theory even to guide intuition.
You basically need to map (input, output) pairs to (input, output, Bool) values and project down into the third coordinate to make  new monad (an "interpretation") for the data structure in terms of Boolean values.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30016198</id>
	<title>Re:Gpl violation</title>
	<author>HermMunster</author>
	<datestamp>1257625740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yours is a complete exaggeration of everything GPL.  Stop using GPL code and write it yourself if you don't want a problem.  If you use it you have to consider the circumstance.  Corporations have a responsibility to ensure their code isn't copied from other projects.  Period.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yours is a complete exaggeration of everything GPL .
Stop using GPL code and write it yourself if you do n't want a problem .
If you use it you have to consider the circumstance .
Corporations have a responsibility to ensure their code is n't copied from other projects .
Period .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yours is a complete exaggeration of everything GPL.
Stop using GPL code and write it yourself if you don't want a problem.
If you use it you have to consider the circumstance.
Corporations have a responsibility to ensure their code isn't copied from other projects.
Period.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015574</id>
	<title>Re:It's not "stealing"...right?</title>
	<author>boudie2</author>
	<datestamp>1257621480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Perhaps a better analogy might be if Bill Gates can borrow Linus Torvalds car,then why can't Linus borrow Bill's?
It's rumoured that Bill has a Porsche 959 that he's never driven.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps a better analogy might be if Bill Gates can borrow Linus Torvalds car,then why ca n't Linus borrow Bill 's ?
It 's rumoured that Bill has a Porsche 959 that he 's never driven .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps a better analogy might be if Bill Gates can borrow Linus Torvalds car,then why can't Linus borrow Bill's?
It's rumoured that Bill has a Porsche 959 that he's never driven.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30018596</id>
	<title>Re:Gpl violation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257606840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lol.  And what if a programmer included Mircrosoft's propreitary code without the business's knowledge?  Is that also a trojan horse then?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lol .
And what if a programmer included Mircrosoft 's propreitary code without the business 's knowledge ?
Is that also a trojan horse then ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lol.
And what if a programmer included Mircrosoft's propreitary code without the business's knowledge?
Is that also a trojan horse then?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30023026</id>
	<title>Re:"Obviously lifted" not so obvious</title>
	<author>thePowerOfGrayskull</author>
	<datestamp>1257703620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think your understanding is off here.  The specific code  is what's copyrighted, not the functionality.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think your understanding is off here .
The specific code is what 's copyrighted , not the functionality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think your understanding is off here.
The specific code  is what's copyrighted, not the functionality.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015066</id>
	<title>Re:It's not "stealing"...right?</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1257618240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you can't "steal" music, you can't "steal" code.</p></div><p>A quick question here. Would I be dragged into court and fined thousands of dollars because my child or a buddy stole open source licensed code using my machine? In other words, it's unlikely that people will have their lives turned upside down by stealing code (assuming generously that they're doing something where that is even possible). The war on "stolen" music is something that can affect the typical slashdotter even if they had no part in the theft. I suppose you could say that this is a shining example of hypocrisy in the slashdot audience. Everyone should have a chance to be right on Slashdot every once in a while.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you ca n't " steal " music , you ca n't " steal " code.A quick question here .
Would I be dragged into court and fined thousands of dollars because my child or a buddy stole open source licensed code using my machine ?
In other words , it 's unlikely that people will have their lives turned upside down by stealing code ( assuming generously that they 're doing something where that is even possible ) .
The war on " stolen " music is something that can affect the typical slashdotter even if they had no part in the theft .
I suppose you could say that this is a shining example of hypocrisy in the slashdot audience .
Everyone should have a chance to be right on Slashdot every once in a while .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you can't "steal" music, you can't "steal" code.A quick question here.
Would I be dragged into court and fined thousands of dollars because my child or a buddy stole open source licensed code using my machine?
In other words, it's unlikely that people will have their lives turned upside down by stealing code (assuming generously that they're doing something where that is even possible).
The war on "stolen" music is something that can affect the typical slashdotter even if they had no part in the theft.
I suppose you could say that this is a shining example of hypocrisy in the slashdot audience.
Everyone should have a chance to be right on Slashdot every once in a while.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015042</id>
	<title>Re:"Obviously lifted" not so obvious</title>
	<author>ozmanjusri</author>
	<datestamp>1257618060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>The code in question seems to be called into scrutiny because the two areas of code bear the same name (ReadBytes) and operate similarly.</i>
<p>
The ReadBytes code was just one example
</p><p>
If you read TFA (yeah, I know...) you'll see the author has updated that original example <a href="http://www.withinwindows.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/example1.png" title="withinwindows.com">with others</a> [withinwindows.com].
</p><p>
It looks like Microsoft's defence will be that the EULA says "&ldquo;You may not  reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble the software". They'll probably charge the guy with a DMCA violation...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The code in question seems to be called into scrutiny because the two areas of code bear the same name ( ReadBytes ) and operate similarly .
The ReadBytes code was just one example If you read TFA ( yeah , I know... ) you 'll see the author has updated that original example with others [ withinwindows.com ] .
It looks like Microsoft 's defence will be that the EULA says "    You may not reverse engineer , decompile or disassemble the software " .
They 'll probably charge the guy with a DMCA violation.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The code in question seems to be called into scrutiny because the two areas of code bear the same name (ReadBytes) and operate similarly.
The ReadBytes code was just one example

If you read TFA (yeah, I know...) you'll see the author has updated that original example with others [withinwindows.com].
It looks like Microsoft's defence will be that the EULA says "“You may not  reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble the software".
They'll probably charge the guy with a DMCA violation...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30017162</id>
	<title>Re:no big deal</title>
	<author>harlows\_monkeys</author>
	<datestamp>1257592200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> It's too late for them to publish the full source under the GPLv2. The GPLv2 termination clauses have already triggered, so they can't ever distribute (parts of) ImageMaster under the GPLv2</p></div><p>This is not clear at all. What's to stop them from building a new version of ImageMaster, with the code in question copied from a new download of the code they allegedly pinched from, and distributing with source under a new instance of the license?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's too late for them to publish the full source under the GPLv2 .
The GPLv2 termination clauses have already triggered , so they ca n't ever distribute ( parts of ) ImageMaster under the GPLv2This is not clear at all .
What 's to stop them from building a new version of ImageMaster , with the code in question copied from a new download of the code they allegedly pinched from , and distributing with source under a new instance of the license ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> It's too late for them to publish the full source under the GPLv2.
The GPLv2 termination clauses have already triggered, so they can't ever distribute (parts of) ImageMaster under the GPLv2This is not clear at all.
What's to stop them from building a new version of ImageMaster, with the code in question copied from a new download of the code they allegedly pinched from, and distributing with source under a new instance of the license?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015054</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015700</id>
	<title>Re:It's not "stealing"...right?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257622260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I  I believe you can steal music, books, printed art, all kinds of artwork.</p></div><p>If you show me how to walk in to an art museum and leg it out side with the <b>ideas</b> of a Rodin I will take back everything I believe and listen to you. Hell, if you can point to an <b>idea</b>, as in taking a picture of you and the <b>idea</b> of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,say ,  a chair I will give you my life savings, shave my head and become your disciple.</p><p>Until then your just a pretentious cunt.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I I believe you can steal music , books , printed art , all kinds of artwork.If you show me how to walk in to an art museum and leg it out side with the ideas of a Rodin I will take back everything I believe and listen to you .
Hell , if you can point to an idea , as in taking a picture of you and the idea of ,say , a chair I will give you my life savings , shave my head and become your disciple.Until then your just a pretentious cunt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I  I believe you can steal music, books, printed art, all kinds of artwork.If you show me how to walk in to an art museum and leg it out side with the ideas of a Rodin I will take back everything I believe and listen to you.
Hell, if you can point to an idea, as in taking a picture of you and the idea of ,say ,  a chair I will give you my life savings, shave my head and become your disciple.Until then your just a pretentious cunt.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015892</id>
	<title>It's not "stolen" code, by the way</title>
	<author>bonch</author>
	<datestamp>1257623460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Rafael Rivera over at WithinWindows.com has found evidence that Microsoft has potentially stolen code from an open source/GPL'd project (ImageMaster) for a utility made available on the Microsoft Store to allow download customers to copy the Windows 7 setup files to a DVD or USB Flash Drive.</p></div></blockquote><p>Copyright infringement isn't theft, as the pirates always tells us on Slashdot, so nothing was "stolen."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Rafael Rivera over at WithinWindows.com has found evidence that Microsoft has potentially stolen code from an open source/GPL 'd project ( ImageMaster ) for a utility made available on the Microsoft Store to allow download customers to copy the Windows 7 setup files to a DVD or USB Flash Drive.Copyright infringement is n't theft , as the pirates always tells us on Slashdot , so nothing was " stolen .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rafael Rivera over at WithinWindows.com has found evidence that Microsoft has potentially stolen code from an open source/GPL'd project (ImageMaster) for a utility made available on the Microsoft Store to allow download customers to copy the Windows 7 setup files to a DVD or USB Flash Drive.Copyright infringement isn't theft, as the pirates always tells us on Slashdot, so nothing was "stolen.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015368</id>
	<title>Re:It's not "stealing"...right?</title>
	<author>kdemetter</author>
	<datestamp>1257619920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That depends : just copying the code is indeed not stealing , like copying music is not stealing.<br>However , if they were to copy it , and claim that they made it originally , and get away with it , that would be stealing , because then the original authors lose ownership of their code .</p><p>That's the same for music : if i copy some unknown person's music , and claim it as my own , i am stealing the ownership from that person.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That depends : just copying the code is indeed not stealing , like copying music is not stealing.However , if they were to copy it , and claim that they made it originally , and get away with it , that would be stealing , because then the original authors lose ownership of their code .That 's the same for music : if i copy some unknown person 's music , and claim it as my own , i am stealing the ownership from that person .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That depends : just copying the code is indeed not stealing , like copying music is not stealing.However , if they were to copy it , and claim that they made it originally , and get away with it , that would be stealing , because then the original authors lose ownership of their code .That's the same for music : if i copy some unknown person's music , and claim it as my own , i am stealing the ownership from that person.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015330</id>
	<title>Re:"Obviously lifted" not so obvious</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257619680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft steal from another company Never LOL.  isn't that what they do?  This company has never innovated anything</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft steal from another company Never LOL .
is n't that what they do ?
This company has never innovated anything</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft steal from another company Never LOL.
isn't that what they do?
This company has never innovated anything</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30016016</id>
	<title>Re:Did a GPL project steal code from Microsoft?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257624300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or more likely, it's a piece of MSDN example code.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or more likely , it 's a piece of MSDN example code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or more likely, it's a piece of MSDN example code.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015854</id>
	<title>Re:It's not "stealing"...right?</title>
	<author>Belial6</author>
	<datestamp>1257623220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>An artist claiming that you can steal music is simply a claim that their shade of gray is better than my shade of gray.  I have yet to see one single non-derivative work.  Not one piece of music that did not use someone else's idea.  When I do, then the music is property crowd can claim to be anything more than a bunch of hypocrites.  Heck, it is common practice for professional musician to discuss in interviews who they copied.</htmltext>
<tokenext>An artist claiming that you can steal music is simply a claim that their shade of gray is better than my shade of gray .
I have yet to see one single non-derivative work .
Not one piece of music that did not use someone else 's idea .
When I do , then the music is property crowd can claim to be anything more than a bunch of hypocrites .
Heck , it is common practice for professional musician to discuss in interviews who they copied .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An artist claiming that you can steal music is simply a claim that their shade of gray is better than my shade of gray.
I have yet to see one single non-derivative work.
Not one piece of music that did not use someone else's idea.
When I do, then the music is property crowd can claim to be anything more than a bunch of hypocrites.
Heck, it is common practice for professional musician to discuss in interviews who they copied.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014708</id>
	<title>Readbytes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257615060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>really? they "stole" readbytes? can we have some different "<i>damning evidence</i>" please.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>really ?
they " stole " readbytes ?
can we have some different " damning evidence " please .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>really?
they "stole" readbytes?
can we have some different "damning evidence" please.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015672</id>
	<title>Re:It's not "stealing"...right?</title>
	<author>petrus4</author>
	<datestamp>1257622140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Come on people, you can't have it both ways. If you can't "steal" music, you can't "steal" code. MS "stealing" this code didn't deprive the Open Source community from using the code (i.e. stealing my car), or at least that's the argument<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.er use whenever the word is used in conjunction with music and movies. Eat your own dog food.</p></div><p>The GPL is based on fear, and scarcity thinking.  This argument holds up logically, yes, but don't expect it to fly with anyone who supports the use of the GPL; it won't.  However, most of said people will also advocate and accept music piracy, which is, of course, simply a double standard.</p><p>This is a victimless crime; although in truth, it isn't really a crime at all.  If said code had been using the BSD license, nobody would have said a word about it; it wouldn't even be spoken about at all.</p><p>It'd be fun if the FSF did decide to try taking Microsoft to court about it, though; then we'd all get to see just how truly impotent the FSF really are.</p><p>Any responses to this from GPL advocates will also be ignored.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Come on people , you ca n't have it both ways .
If you ca n't " steal " music , you ca n't " steal " code .
MS " stealing " this code did n't deprive the Open Source community from using the code ( i.e .
stealing my car ) , or at least that 's the argument /.er use whenever the word is used in conjunction with music and movies .
Eat your own dog food.The GPL is based on fear , and scarcity thinking .
This argument holds up logically , yes , but do n't expect it to fly with anyone who supports the use of the GPL ; it wo n't .
However , most of said people will also advocate and accept music piracy , which is , of course , simply a double standard.This is a victimless crime ; although in truth , it is n't really a crime at all .
If said code had been using the BSD license , nobody would have said a word about it ; it would n't even be spoken about at all.It 'd be fun if the FSF did decide to try taking Microsoft to court about it , though ; then we 'd all get to see just how truly impotent the FSF really are.Any responses to this from GPL advocates will also be ignored .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Come on people, you can't have it both ways.
If you can't "steal" music, you can't "steal" code.
MS "stealing" this code didn't deprive the Open Source community from using the code (i.e.
stealing my car), or at least that's the argument /.er use whenever the word is used in conjunction with music and movies.
Eat your own dog food.The GPL is based on fear, and scarcity thinking.
This argument holds up logically, yes, but don't expect it to fly with anyone who supports the use of the GPL; it won't.
However, most of said people will also advocate and accept music piracy, which is, of course, simply a double standard.This is a victimless crime; although in truth, it isn't really a crime at all.
If said code had been using the BSD license, nobody would have said a word about it; it wouldn't even be spoken about at all.It'd be fun if the FSF did decide to try taking Microsoft to court about it, though; then we'd all get to see just how truly impotent the FSF really are.Any responses to this from GPL advocates will also be ignored.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30016370</id>
	<title>Re:It's .NET code</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257627480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You got the code, that's open source.. what is your definition of open source?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You got the code , that 's open source.. what is your definition of open source ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You got the code, that's open source.. what is your definition of open source?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30022990</id>
	<title>Re:It's not "stealing"...right?</title>
	<author>smoker2</author>
	<datestamp>1257703380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well they sure didn't "borrow" it !</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well they sure did n't " borrow " it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well they sure didn't "borrow" it !</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30016560</id>
	<title>Re:Did a GPL project steal code from Microsoft?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257586440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or, was ImageMaster a fork from an internal Microsoft project?  What if it was written by an employee at MS in their spare time, open sourced.  Then same employee had to write something similar for work and copied his own code and gave it to MS? Or worse, did things the other way around.  (In which case, ImageMaster is the one possibly violating copyright if the code wasn't supposed to be open sourced by an employee?)</p><p>Who is element109?</p><p>The comments on the original talk about 7-Zip.  Except 7-zip is native C++, this is clearly<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net.  That doesn't add up.  Something's odd somewhere.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or , was ImageMaster a fork from an internal Microsoft project ?
What if it was written by an employee at MS in their spare time , open sourced .
Then same employee had to write something similar for work and copied his own code and gave it to MS ?
Or worse , did things the other way around .
( In which case , ImageMaster is the one possibly violating copyright if the code was n't supposed to be open sourced by an employee ?
) Who is element109 ? The comments on the original talk about 7-Zip .
Except 7-zip is native C + + , this is clearly .Net .
That does n't add up .
Something 's odd somewhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or, was ImageMaster a fork from an internal Microsoft project?
What if it was written by an employee at MS in their spare time, open sourced.
Then same employee had to write something similar for work and copied his own code and gave it to MS?
Or worse, did things the other way around.
(In which case, ImageMaster is the one possibly violating copyright if the code wasn't supposed to be open sourced by an employee?
)Who is element109?The comments on the original talk about 7-Zip.
Except 7-zip is native C++, this is clearly .Net.
That doesn't add up.
Something's odd somewhere.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014752</id>
	<title>Re:Dear Slashdot</title>
	<author>V!NCENT</author>
	<datestamp>1257615600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's on my home computer as my primary OS, next to Windows XP for anything else that I am forced to use by third parties. It is indeed embarassing... If anything it could be just a lazy guy who did this...</p><p>I mean come on... Hackers 3 is a fictional movie. Microsoft didn't swap NT with Linux in Windows 7 or anything, or used Plasma for their desktop... \_'</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's on my home computer as my primary OS , next to Windows XP for anything else that I am forced to use by third parties .
It is indeed embarassing... If anything it could be just a lazy guy who did this...I mean come on... Hackers 3 is a fictional movie .
Microsoft did n't swap NT with Linux in Windows 7 or anything , or used Plasma for their desktop... \ _'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's on my home computer as my primary OS, next to Windows XP for anything else that I am forced to use by third parties.
It is indeed embarassing... If anything it could be just a lazy guy who did this...I mean come on... Hackers 3 is a fictional movie.
Microsoft didn't swap NT with Linux in Windows 7 or anything, or used Plasma for their desktop... \_'</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014698</id>
	<title>"Obviously lifted" not so obvious</title>
	<author>BadAnalogyGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1257615000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The code in question seems to be called into scrutiny because the two areas of code bear the same name (ReadBytes) and operate similarly.</p><p>The longer you work in the development of software, the less magical it all becomes. The first time you plugged some code into a terminal and it worked, it seemed like an amazing amount of wizardry and behind-the-scenes stuff that you could never fully fathom. Compilers, binary code, arcane source languages, electronic signals. It's amazing to a neophyte just how much stuff is going on.</p><p>But the longer you plug away at it, the more you realize that it's just code. Nothing special is really going on. You're mostly moving data from one area of memory to another. It's almost a form of Nirvana once you reach this point.</p><p>So when someone comes along and says "OMG YOUR READBYTES METHOD IS JUST LIKE THIS ONE IN SOME GPL CODE!!!!11", it kind of pegs that person as someone who doesn't really have much experience with real programming. Sure, they may use a lot of tools, and know how to recompile their kernel, but they really don't have a firm grasp of what and why they are doing what they are doing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The code in question seems to be called into scrutiny because the two areas of code bear the same name ( ReadBytes ) and operate similarly.The longer you work in the development of software , the less magical it all becomes .
The first time you plugged some code into a terminal and it worked , it seemed like an amazing amount of wizardry and behind-the-scenes stuff that you could never fully fathom .
Compilers , binary code , arcane source languages , electronic signals .
It 's amazing to a neophyte just how much stuff is going on.But the longer you plug away at it , the more you realize that it 's just code .
Nothing special is really going on .
You 're mostly moving data from one area of memory to another .
It 's almost a form of Nirvana once you reach this point.So when someone comes along and says " OMG YOUR READBYTES METHOD IS JUST LIKE THIS ONE IN SOME GPL CODE ! ! !
! 11 " , it kind of pegs that person as someone who does n't really have much experience with real programming .
Sure , they may use a lot of tools , and know how to recompile their kernel , but they really do n't have a firm grasp of what and why they are doing what they are doing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The code in question seems to be called into scrutiny because the two areas of code bear the same name (ReadBytes) and operate similarly.The longer you work in the development of software, the less magical it all becomes.
The first time you plugged some code into a terminal and it worked, it seemed like an amazing amount of wizardry and behind-the-scenes stuff that you could never fully fathom.
Compilers, binary code, arcane source languages, electronic signals.
It's amazing to a neophyte just how much stuff is going on.But the longer you plug away at it, the more you realize that it's just code.
Nothing special is really going on.
You're mostly moving data from one area of memory to another.
It's almost a form of Nirvana once you reach this point.So when someone comes along and says "OMG YOUR READBYTES METHOD IS JUST LIKE THIS ONE IN SOME GPL CODE!!!
!11", it kind of pegs that person as someone who doesn't really have much experience with real programming.
Sure, they may use a lot of tools, and know how to recompile their kernel, but they really don't have a firm grasp of what and why they are doing what they are doing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30017074</id>
	<title>Re:"Obviously lifted" not so obvious</title>
	<author>Shienarier</author>
	<datestamp>1257591420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps you could explain then.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps you could explain then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps you could explain then.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015012</id>
	<title>Re:Knee jerk</title>
	<author>Timothy Brownawell</author>
	<datestamp>1257617820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Moderated 'Flamebait.' 0 points left.</p></div><p>Seriously, whoever decided that we just get one dropdown and no 'confirm' button needs to be taken out back and shot. And I'd just used my other points on some <em>actual</em> trolls upthread, too.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Moderated 'Flamebait .
' 0 points left.Seriously , whoever decided that we just get one dropdown and no 'confirm ' button needs to be taken out back and shot .
And I 'd just used my other points on some actual trolls upthread , too .
: (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Moderated 'Flamebait.
' 0 points left.Seriously, whoever decided that we just get one dropdown and no 'confirm' button needs to be taken out back and shot.
And I'd just used my other points on some actual trolls upthread, too.
:(
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014706</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30017700</id>
	<title>Everyone Disassembles</title>
	<author>woolio</author>
	<datestamp>1257597660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><b>It looks like Microsoft's defence will be that the EULA says ""You may not reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble the software". They'll probably charge the guy with a DMCA violation...</b></p><p>Legally speaking, what does it mean to disassemble a program?   Is it to convert its machine representation into a more readable format?   Every processor in every computer does this, it just disassembles to a language that is not composed of English words and numbers.  \</p><p>If someone owns Visual Studio and another program on their system crashes, what happens? A little dialog box asks the user if they want to debug.  If they say yes, Visual Studio fires up with a disassembly view of the program that crashed!</p><p>Isn't the entire Wine project basically reverse engineering the Windows APIs?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It looks like Microsoft 's defence will be that the EULA says " " You may not reverse engineer , decompile or disassemble the software " .
They 'll probably charge the guy with a DMCA violation...Legally speaking , what does it mean to disassemble a program ?
Is it to convert its machine representation into a more readable format ?
Every processor in every computer does this , it just disassembles to a language that is not composed of English words and numbers .
\ If someone owns Visual Studio and another program on their system crashes , what happens ?
A little dialog box asks the user if they want to debug .
If they say yes , Visual Studio fires up with a disassembly view of the program that crashed ! Is n't the entire Wine project basically reverse engineering the Windows APIs ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It looks like Microsoft's defence will be that the EULA says ""You may not reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble the software".
They'll probably charge the guy with a DMCA violation...Legally speaking, what does it mean to disassemble a program?
Is it to convert its machine representation into a more readable format?
Every processor in every computer does this, it just disassembles to a language that is not composed of English words and numbers.
\If someone owns Visual Studio and another program on their system crashes, what happens?
A little dialog box asks the user if they want to debug.
If they say yes, Visual Studio fires up with a disassembly view of the program that crashed!Isn't the entire Wine project basically reverse engineering the Windows APIs?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015042</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014892</id>
	<title>Re:Gpl violation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257616860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>True, and it's interesting how the FOSS movement delightfully and intentionally has made every piece of GPL3 code a trojan horse that can destroy a company's business model if a single programmer without the knowledge of the business copies a snippet of code to make his job easier.</p><p>How about a new image licensing model where licenses are embedded in images, and someone who copies and publishes a square inch of an image in question without making sure the publication is free of any hint of "tainted license" loses all his possessions and are deported to a penal colony? That would of course be evil.</p><p>(Cue "that is what the RIAA does": No, the FOSS movement does not offer cheap settlements for license breaches and only targets high-rate offenders. It is similar to an RIAA that always goes for lawsuits and sues for a billion per song in every case).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>True , and it 's interesting how the FOSS movement delightfully and intentionally has made every piece of GPL3 code a trojan horse that can destroy a company 's business model if a single programmer without the knowledge of the business copies a snippet of code to make his job easier.How about a new image licensing model where licenses are embedded in images , and someone who copies and publishes a square inch of an image in question without making sure the publication is free of any hint of " tainted license " loses all his possessions and are deported to a penal colony ?
That would of course be evil .
( Cue " that is what the RIAA does " : No , the FOSS movement does not offer cheap settlements for license breaches and only targets high-rate offenders .
It is similar to an RIAA that always goes for lawsuits and sues for a billion per song in every case ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>True, and it's interesting how the FOSS movement delightfully and intentionally has made every piece of GPL3 code a trojan horse that can destroy a company's business model if a single programmer without the knowledge of the business copies a snippet of code to make his job easier.How about a new image licensing model where licenses are embedded in images, and someone who copies and publishes a square inch of an image in question without making sure the publication is free of any hint of "tainted license" loses all his possessions and are deported to a penal colony?
That would of course be evil.
(Cue "that is what the RIAA does": No, the FOSS movement does not offer cheap settlements for license breaches and only targets high-rate offenders.
It is similar to an RIAA that always goes for lawsuits and sues for a billion per song in every case).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30016104</id>
	<title>Re:"Obviously lifted" not so obvious</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1257625020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>His new example is pretty weak too.  It's another function to read some sort of header, and, surprise, the code operates in a similar way.  Well, it pretty much has to... it's reading the same kind of header.</p><p>So far it's all pretty poor evidence.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>His new example is pretty weak too .
It 's another function to read some sort of header , and , surprise , the code operates in a similar way .
Well , it pretty much has to... it 's reading the same kind of header.So far it 's all pretty poor evidence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>His new example is pretty weak too.
It's another function to read some sort of header, and, surprise, the code operates in a similar way.
Well, it pretty much has to... it's reading the same kind of header.So far it's all pretty poor evidence.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30024664</id>
	<title>Re:"borrow"?</title>
	<author>YourExperiment</author>
	<datestamp>1257671940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I wonder if I can try that with the RIAA/BSA?</p></div><p>Sure you can. Good luck, and be sure to let us know how you get on!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder if I can try that with the RIAA/BSA ? Sure you can .
Good luck , and be sure to let us know how you get on !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder if I can try that with the RIAA/BSA?Sure you can.
Good luck, and be sure to let us know how you get on!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015348</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015162</id>
	<title>Re:It's not "stealing"...right?</title>
	<author>ShadowRangerRIT</author>
	<datestamp>1257618720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is a free tool to transfer Windows 7 to a different installation medium.  Even if this was infringement (and I'm skeptical on that point, the functions "infringed" look pretty standard and trivial to reimplement), they still aren't making a profit on this "theft."  The OS is sold as is, they're just providing an additional tool to work with it for free, and separately.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a free tool to transfer Windows 7 to a different installation medium .
Even if this was infringement ( and I 'm skeptical on that point , the functions " infringed " look pretty standard and trivial to reimplement ) , they still are n't making a profit on this " theft .
" The OS is sold as is , they 're just providing an additional tool to work with it for free , and separately .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a free tool to transfer Windows 7 to a different installation medium.
Even if this was infringement (and I'm skeptical on that point, the functions "infringed" look pretty standard and trivial to reimplement), they still aren't making a profit on this "theft.
"  The OS is sold as is, they're just providing an additional tool to work with it for free, and separately.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015308</id>
	<title>Re:Knee jerk</title>
	<author>megabunny</author>
	<datestamp>1257619560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The new example is much clearer. Basic structure follows well. All the magic numbers in the code that I looked at matched too, and there are quite a few. Looks like it was massaged at least a bit, probably just to fit in with the local code environment not to obscure it.</p><p>But<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<br>The article points out only two weaknesses in this code borrowing. MS did not feed back any (unknown at this point) enhancements to the source. And they did not offer the source under the right license.</p><p>It is a real but very minor issue. If it wasn't MS it would not even be interesting.</p><p>MB</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The new example is much clearer .
Basic structure follows well .
All the magic numbers in the code that I looked at matched too , and there are quite a few .
Looks like it was massaged at least a bit , probably just to fit in with the local code environment not to obscure it.But ...The article points out only two weaknesses in this code borrowing .
MS did not feed back any ( unknown at this point ) enhancements to the source .
And they did not offer the source under the right license.It is a real but very minor issue .
If it was n't MS it would not even be interesting.MB</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The new example is much clearer.
Basic structure follows well.
All the magic numbers in the code that I looked at matched too, and there are quite a few.
Looks like it was massaged at least a bit, probably just to fit in with the local code environment not to obscure it.But ...The article points out only two weaknesses in this code borrowing.
MS did not feed back any (unknown at this point) enhancements to the source.
And they did not offer the source under the right license.It is a real but very minor issue.
If it wasn't MS it would not even be interesting.MB</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014706</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014672</id>
	<title>I have a boner</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257614700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And it's poking through my pants.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And it 's poking through my pants .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And it's poking through my pants.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014804</id>
	<title>Re:not sureprised</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257616080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>People who use Microsoft software are so locked into it that they have to accept whatever Microsoft managers decide to do, no matter how abusive. Microsoft has been abusive for years, and the lock-in continues. Many publications depend on Microsoft advertising; they don't write negative articles about Microsoft.</htmltext>
<tokenext>People who use Microsoft software are so locked into it that they have to accept whatever Microsoft managers decide to do , no matter how abusive .
Microsoft has been abusive for years , and the lock-in continues .
Many publications depend on Microsoft advertising ; they do n't write negative articles about Microsoft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People who use Microsoft software are so locked into it that they have to accept whatever Microsoft managers decide to do, no matter how abusive.
Microsoft has been abusive for years, and the lock-in continues.
Many publications depend on Microsoft advertising; they don't write negative articles about Microsoft.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015644</id>
	<title>Re:That's his evidence?</title>
	<author>The MAZZTer</author>
	<datestamp>1257621960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does the spec suggest you should create a helper class called "UdfHelper"?  Does it suggest other class and type names to use?  IMO too many of them match up to be coincidence.</p><p>

<a href="http://www.withinwindows.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/example1.png" title="withinwindows.com">http://www.withinwindows.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/example1.png</a> [withinwindows.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does the spec suggest you should create a helper class called " UdfHelper " ?
Does it suggest other class and type names to use ?
IMO too many of them match up to be coincidence .
http : //www.withinwindows.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/example1.png [ withinwindows.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does the spec suggest you should create a helper class called "UdfHelper"?
Does it suggest other class and type names to use?
IMO too many of them match up to be coincidence.
http://www.withinwindows.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/example1.png [withinwindows.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014954</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015068</id>
	<title>Re:It's not "stealing"...right?</title>
	<author>wizardforce</author>
	<datestamp>1257618240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sure there are many people who hold both to be true.  However, there are also people on Slashdot that realise that the two positions are to some extent, exclusive of one another.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure there are many people who hold both to be true .
However , there are also people on Slashdot that realise that the two positions are to some extent , exclusive of one another .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure there are many people who hold both to be true.
However, there are also people on Slashdot that realise that the two positions are to some extent, exclusive of one another.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015054</id>
	<title>Re:no big deal</title>
	<author>amorsen</author>
	<datestamp>1257618180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's too late for them to publish the full source under the GPLv2. The GPLv2 termination clauses have already triggered, so they can't ever distribute (parts of) ImageMaster under the GPLv2.</p><p>Assuming that ImageMaster is under the GPLv2. I can't RTFA, because it is Slashdotted. The GPLv3 is more lenient.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's too late for them to publish the full source under the GPLv2 .
The GPLv2 termination clauses have already triggered , so they ca n't ever distribute ( parts of ) ImageMaster under the GPLv2.Assuming that ImageMaster is under the GPLv2 .
I ca n't RTFA , because it is Slashdotted .
The GPLv3 is more lenient .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's too late for them to publish the full source under the GPLv2.
The GPLv2 termination clauses have already triggered, so they can't ever distribute (parts of) ImageMaster under the GPLv2.Assuming that ImageMaster is under the GPLv2.
I can't RTFA, because it is Slashdotted.
The GPLv3 is more lenient.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014706</id>
	<title>Knee jerk</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257615060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So the evidence is a ReadBytes snippet?</p><p>I'll wait till there's evidence before even commenting about the ramifications of something like this. This is just wild speculation at this point.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So the evidence is a ReadBytes snippet ? I 'll wait till there 's evidence before even commenting about the ramifications of something like this .
This is just wild speculation at this point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So the evidence is a ReadBytes snippet?I'll wait till there's evidence before even commenting about the ramifications of something like this.
This is just wild speculation at this point.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014856</id>
	<title>It's not "stealing"...right?</title>
	<author>Tankko</author>
	<datestamp>1257616500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Come on people, you can't have it both ways.  If you can't "steal" music, you can't "steal" code.  MS "stealing" this code didn't deprive the Open Source community from using the code (i.e. stealing my car), or at least that's the argument<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.er use whenever the word is used in conjunction with music and movies.   Eat your own dog food.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Come on people , you ca n't have it both ways .
If you ca n't " steal " music , you ca n't " steal " code .
MS " stealing " this code did n't deprive the Open Source community from using the code ( i.e .
stealing my car ) , or at least that 's the argument /.er use whenever the word is used in conjunction with music and movies .
Eat your own dog food .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Come on people, you can't have it both ways.
If you can't "steal" music, you can't "steal" code.
MS "stealing" this code didn't deprive the Open Source community from using the code (i.e.
stealing my car), or at least that's the argument /.er use whenever the word is used in conjunction with music and movies.
Eat your own dog food.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30019442</id>
	<title>Re:It's not "stealing"...right?</title>
	<author>mqduck</author>
	<datestamp>1257618960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm fairly sure that by accepting money for someone else's property, you are stealing money from that person, whether you deprived that person of the property or not.</p></div><p>You're right, but let's not reinforce the notion that imaginary "property" is property.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm fairly sure that by accepting money for someone else 's property , you are stealing money from that person , whether you deprived that person of the property or not.You 're right , but let 's not reinforce the notion that imaginary " property " is property .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm fairly sure that by accepting money for someone else's property, you are stealing money from that person, whether you deprived that person of the property or not.You're right, but let's not reinforce the notion that imaginary "property" is property.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014836</id>
	<title>Re:not sureprised</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257616380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Dollar to a donut - Microsoft DID NOT BORROW any GPL code.<br> <br>

Borrowing implies some intent to properly compensate, reward, or return something.<br> <br>

Microsoft STOLE GPL code.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dollar to a donut - Microsoft DID NOT BORROW any GPL code .
Borrowing implies some intent to properly compensate , reward , or return something .
Microsoft STOLE GPL code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dollar to a donut - Microsoft DID NOT BORROW any GPL code.
Borrowing implies some intent to properly compensate, reward, or return something.
Microsoft STOLE GPL code.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014686</id>
	<title>not sureprised</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257614820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>for some reason it would not surprise me if microsft stole that and a bunch of other code... idk just a feeling</htmltext>
<tokenext>for some reason it would not surprise me if microsft stole that and a bunch of other code... idk just a feeling</tokentext>
<sentencetext>for some reason it would not surprise me if microsft stole that and a bunch of other code... idk just a feeling</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015338</id>
	<title>Re:"Obviously lifted" not so obvious</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257619740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Especially in this case: the example code is part of a parser. Guess what, when you write a parser for any kind of file format without using a formal grammar tool, the most natural way to do it is read the individual components in the order the file format presents them. So the structure of the code is very much determined by the file format, and you have to expect a lot of similarities between different implementations, even if they were done completely independent of each other. Constants like the value 400 seem like arbitrary choices at first glance, until you realize that those offsets are part of the file format spec...</p><p>The code snippet that is provided in TFA stops in the middle of a for loop. I wonder why? Was the rest just not similar enough for a sensationalist article?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Especially in this case : the example code is part of a parser .
Guess what , when you write a parser for any kind of file format without using a formal grammar tool , the most natural way to do it is read the individual components in the order the file format presents them .
So the structure of the code is very much determined by the file format , and you have to expect a lot of similarities between different implementations , even if they were done completely independent of each other .
Constants like the value 400 seem like arbitrary choices at first glance , until you realize that those offsets are part of the file format spec...The code snippet that is provided in TFA stops in the middle of a for loop .
I wonder why ?
Was the rest just not similar enough for a sensationalist article ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Especially in this case: the example code is part of a parser.
Guess what, when you write a parser for any kind of file format without using a formal grammar tool, the most natural way to do it is read the individual components in the order the file format presents them.
So the structure of the code is very much determined by the file format, and you have to expect a lot of similarities between different implementations, even if they were done completely independent of each other.
Constants like the value 400 seem like arbitrary choices at first glance, until you realize that those offsets are part of the file format spec...The code snippet that is provided in TFA stops in the middle of a for loop.
I wonder why?
Was the rest just not similar enough for a sensationalist article?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014698</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_1547214_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015568
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_1547214_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30016846
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_1547214_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30019442
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_1547214_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30016570
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_1547214_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30016792
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_1547214_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014836
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_1547214_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30016140
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_1547214_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_1547214_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015892
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_1547214_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015566
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_1547214_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30016370
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_1547214_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015628
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_1547214_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30026260
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_1547214_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30020122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_1547214_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015308
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_1547214_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015574
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_1547214_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015132
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_1547214_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014946
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_1547214_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30016272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30029776
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_1547214_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30017182
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_1547214_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30016518
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_1547214_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30016934
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_1547214_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015700
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_1547214_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015310
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_1547214_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015644
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_1547214_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015080
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_1547214_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014910
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_1547214_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30017368
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_1547214_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015880
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_1547214_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30016272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30030736
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_1547214_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015048
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_1547214_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015200
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_1547214_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30016372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_1547214_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015330
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_1547214_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30018554
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_1547214_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30024154
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_1547214_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014752
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_1547214_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_1547214_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015066
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_1547214_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30017080
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_1547214_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015026
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_1547214_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30017700
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_1547214_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015306
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_1547214_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30016560
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_1547214_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015368
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_1547214_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30016104
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_1547214_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015308
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30024746
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_1547214_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30026348
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_1547214_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30020030
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_1547214_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015212
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_1547214_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30016330
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_1547214_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014968
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015660
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_1547214_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30016286
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_1547214_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30016446
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_1547214_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30016404
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_1547214_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30019362
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_1547214_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015074
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_1547214_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30022990
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_1547214_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015672
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_1547214_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015854
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_1547214_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30016198
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_1547214_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015308
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30023320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_1547214_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30017074
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_1547214_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014804
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_1547214_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30016532
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_1547214_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30016718
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_1547214_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015140
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_1547214_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015338
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30030708
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_1547214_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015340
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_1547214_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30018596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_1547214_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30017162
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_1547214_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30017470
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_1547214_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30023026
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_1547214_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015068
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_1547214_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30016016
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_1547214_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014772
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_1547214_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30016300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_1547214_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30024664
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_07_1547214.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014732
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014892
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015310
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015132
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30018596
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30016198
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30016718
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_07_1547214.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014780
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015054
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30017162
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30024154
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_07_1547214.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015018
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30016560
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30016016
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_07_1547214.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014968
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015660
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_07_1547214.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014686
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014836
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014804
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_07_1547214.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014706
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015012
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30017080
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015340
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015026
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015308
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015778
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30024746
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30023320
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_07_1547214.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014758
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30016330
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015070
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30016532
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30016370
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015628
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015306
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_07_1547214.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014954
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015644
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_07_1547214.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014698
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30020030
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014910
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30016272
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30029776
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30030736
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30017368
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30017074
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015892
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30016104
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015212
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30016846
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015042
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30018554
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30016140
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30016404
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30017700
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30016300
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30016518
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015566
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014952
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015080
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30023026
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015330
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014772
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015338
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30030708
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_07_1547214.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014998
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30016570
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_07_1547214.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014672
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30026260
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_07_1547214.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015466
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_07_1547214.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014856
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015574
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015048
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015368
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015200
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014932
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30019442
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015162
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015880
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015140
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015068
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015074
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30016446
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014988
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30026348
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30016286
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014946
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015672
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30022990
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015066
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30016792
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014978
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015700
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30017470
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30019362
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015568
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30016934
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30017182
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30016372
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015854
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30020122
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_07_1547214.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30015348
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30024664
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_07_1547214.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014712
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014752
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_07_1547214.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014898
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_07_1547214.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_1547214.30014708
</commentlist>
</conversation>
