<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_13_2311232</id>
	<title>Microsoft Takes Responsibility For GPL Violation</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1258113720000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes with an update to the news we <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/11/07/1547214/Did-Microsoft-Borrow-GPL-Code-For-a-Windows-7-Utility?from=rss">discussed last weekend</a> that a Windows 7 utility seemed to contain GPL code:
<i>"Microsoft has confirmed that the Windows 7 USB/DVD tool did, in fact, use GPL code, and they have <a href="http://port25.technet.com/archive/2009/11/13/update-on-the-windows-7-download-tool-or-microsoft-to-open-source-the-windows-7-download-tool.aspx">agreed to release the tool's source code</a> under the terms of GPLv2. In a statement, Microsoft said creation of the tool had been contracted out to a third party and apologized for not noticing the GPL code during a code review."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes with an update to the news we discussed last weekend that a Windows 7 utility seemed to contain GPL code : " Microsoft has confirmed that the Windows 7 USB/DVD tool did , in fact , use GPL code , and they have agreed to release the tool 's source code under the terms of GPLv2 .
In a statement , Microsoft said creation of the tool had been contracted out to a third party and apologized for not noticing the GPL code during a code review .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes with an update to the news we discussed last weekend that a Windows 7 utility seemed to contain GPL code:
"Microsoft has confirmed that the Windows 7 USB/DVD tool did, in fact, use GPL code, and they have agreed to release the tool's source code under the terms of GPLv2.
In a statement, Microsoft said creation of the tool had been contracted out to a third party and apologized for not noticing the GPL code during a code review.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093852</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, so it's ok then</title>
	<author>tonycheese</author>
	<datestamp>1258120380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you make a few music/movie downloads and they catch you, the first thing they do is send a letter to your ISP giving a warning to you. So yes, you would just delete it and apologize.</p><p>And yes, like the other person said, Microsoft isn't going around suing people for downloading music, movies, or pirated copies of Windows.</p><p>Besides, there was a whole article a few days ago about how GPL violations happen very frequently and that politely pointing it out usually solves the problem. It was an accident, not an "accident", and it's been fixed so get over it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you make a few music/movie downloads and they catch you , the first thing they do is send a letter to your ISP giving a warning to you .
So yes , you would just delete it and apologize.And yes , like the other person said , Microsoft is n't going around suing people for downloading music , movies , or pirated copies of Windows.Besides , there was a whole article a few days ago about how GPL violations happen very frequently and that politely pointing it out usually solves the problem .
It was an accident , not an " accident " , and it 's been fixed so get over it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you make a few music/movie downloads and they catch you, the first thing they do is send a letter to your ISP giving a warning to you.
So yes, you would just delete it and apologize.And yes, like the other person said, Microsoft isn't going around suing people for downloading music, movies, or pirated copies of Windows.Besides, there was a whole article a few days ago about how GPL violations happen very frequently and that politely pointing it out usually solves the problem.
It was an accident, not an "accident", and it's been fixed so get over it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093820</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, so it's ok then</title>
	<author>AthleteMusicianNerd</author>
	<datestamp>1258120200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, yes you can do that.  My roommate did that, and they shut off my internet access.  Once he removed it from his machine they turned it back on.  No fines or punishment whatsoever other than the phone call to get access turned back on.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , yes you can do that .
My roommate did that , and they shut off my internet access .
Once he removed it from his machine they turned it back on .
No fines or punishment whatsoever other than the phone call to get access turned back on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, yes you can do that.
My roommate did that, and they shut off my internet access.
Once he removed it from his machine they turned it back on.
No fines or punishment whatsoever other than the phone call to get access turned back on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30095520</id>
	<title>Re:Code Review</title>
	<author>Sam the Nemesis</author>
	<datestamp>1258141500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are tools available to find out whether GPL / OpenSource code is used in your codebase. Normally, such tools have a huge repository which is continuously updated.

I had seen a demo of one such tool few months back and I was really impressed. Obviously, the checking takes long time because of the size of the repository to compare with.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are tools available to find out whether GPL / OpenSource code is used in your codebase .
Normally , such tools have a huge repository which is continuously updated .
I had seen a demo of one such tool few months back and I was really impressed .
Obviously , the checking takes long time because of the size of the repository to compare with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are tools available to find out whether GPL / OpenSource code is used in your codebase.
Normally, such tools have a huge repository which is continuously updated.
I had seen a demo of one such tool few months back and I was really impressed.
Obviously, the checking takes long time because of the size of the repository to compare with.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30094910</id>
	<title>Re:Good on MS</title>
	<author>ShaunC</author>
	<datestamp>1258131480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'd find something stolen off the net, and I'd have to pull it and reprimand the vendor, and then get them to do the work and pay them for it again.</p></div><p>Wait, what? The contract forbade the vendor from using stolen code, but didn't provide Microsoft any financial remedy when this behavior was discovered? Not only should you not have had to pay them to do the work again, the vendor should have made financial concessions.</p><p>What the hell was the legal team doing?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd find something stolen off the net , and I 'd have to pull it and reprimand the vendor , and then get them to do the work and pay them for it again.Wait , what ?
The contract forbade the vendor from using stolen code , but did n't provide Microsoft any financial remedy when this behavior was discovered ?
Not only should you not have had to pay them to do the work again , the vendor should have made financial concessions.What the hell was the legal team doing ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd find something stolen off the net, and I'd have to pull it and reprimand the vendor, and then get them to do the work and pay them for it again.Wait, what?
The contract forbade the vendor from using stolen code, but didn't provide Microsoft any financial remedy when this behavior was discovered?
Not only should you not have had to pay them to do the work again, the vendor should have made financial concessions.What the hell was the legal team doing?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30094246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30094532</id>
	<title>Decent resolution.</title>
	<author>transiit</author>
	<datestamp>1258127040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So after reading many years' worth of Microsoft talking about how the GPL is the worst thing ever, I'll give them credit for dealing with this situation appropriately.</p><p>Granted, their risk profile of releasing the source for such utility is pretty minimal, but I'll give them credit for going the user-friendly route of complying with the GPL instead of trying to quash all distribution of the tool they were distributing.</p><p>It doesn't bring them up high on my measure of regard, but I'll give them the tip of the hat for aiming the right way on this one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So after reading many years ' worth of Microsoft talking about how the GPL is the worst thing ever , I 'll give them credit for dealing with this situation appropriately.Granted , their risk profile of releasing the source for such utility is pretty minimal , but I 'll give them credit for going the user-friendly route of complying with the GPL instead of trying to quash all distribution of the tool they were distributing.It does n't bring them up high on my measure of regard , but I 'll give them the tip of the hat for aiming the right way on this one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So after reading many years' worth of Microsoft talking about how the GPL is the worst thing ever, I'll give them credit for dealing with this situation appropriately.Granted, their risk profile of releasing the source for such utility is pretty minimal, but I'll give them credit for going the user-friendly route of complying with the GPL instead of trying to quash all distribution of the tool they were distributing.It doesn't bring them up high on my measure of regard, but I'll give them the tip of the hat for aiming the right way on this one.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093646</id>
	<title>Re:Wow look what happened...</title>
	<author>Thantik</author>
	<datestamp>1258118640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Swine Flu.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Swine Flu .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Swine Flu.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30097624</id>
	<title>Re:Good on MS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258215180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>But this worked out perfectly for Microsofts rhetoric: they said the GPL was viral, and now they've had to release code because of it. Different values of "had to" won't be discussed when Microsoft brings this incident up again.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But this worked out perfectly for Microsofts rhetoric : they said the GPL was viral , and now they 've had to release code because of it .
Different values of " had to " wo n't be discussed when Microsoft brings this incident up again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But this worked out perfectly for Microsofts rhetoric: they said the GPL was viral, and now they've had to release code because of it.
Different values of "had to" won't be discussed when Microsoft brings this incident up again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30094246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30114294</id>
	<title>Re:Code Review</title>
	<author>MoreDruid</author>
	<datestamp>1258380360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A more interesting point is that they released the source code, thereby implicitly making the statement that the GPL is valid and enforcable.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A more interesting point is that they released the source code , thereby implicitly making the statement that the GPL is valid and enforcable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A more interesting point is that they released the source code, thereby implicitly making the statement that the GPL is valid and enforcable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30096378</id>
	<title>Did you see comments?</title>
	<author>Ilgaz</author>
	<datestamp>1258201320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not just that, nobody believed the guy. Everyone joked about using same API calls etc.</p><p>I don't see them apologize now, as usual. It means even if you find about it, you may stay silent not to bother with these idiots and a giant software monopoly like MS.</p><p>I still have no clue why World's largest OS vendor can't write their own damn tool. It is not Photoshop for God's sake.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not just that , nobody believed the guy .
Everyone joked about using same API calls etc.I do n't see them apologize now , as usual .
It means even if you find about it , you may stay silent not to bother with these idiots and a giant software monopoly like MS.I still have no clue why World 's largest OS vendor ca n't write their own damn tool .
It is not Photoshop for God 's sake .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not just that, nobody believed the guy.
Everyone joked about using same API calls etc.I don't see them apologize now, as usual.
It means even if you find about it, you may stay silent not to bother with these idiots and a giant software monopoly like MS.I still have no clue why World's largest OS vendor can't write their own damn tool.
It is not Photoshop for God's sake.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093762</id>
	<title>Re:How did they miss that?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258119540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How did they miss that?</p></div><p>They used Bing to search for the code, and when it found nothing they assumed the code was original.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How did they miss that ? They used Bing to search for the code , and when it found nothing they assumed the code was original .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How did they miss that?They used Bing to search for the code, and when it found nothing they assumed the code was original.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093508</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30094544</id>
	<title>Re:Code Review</title>
	<author>tangent3</author>
	<datestamp>1258127220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well typically GPL'ed code is supposed to be released together with the license, often as comments at the top of the files, or as a LICENSE.txt file together with the package.</p><p>If you suspect that the third party contractor could be maliciously including GPLed code with license stripped out (why are you working with them in the first place??) you could use <a href="http://www.google.com/codesearch" title="google.com">http://www.google.com/codesearch</a> [google.com]</p><p>I'd expect MS to be suing the pants off the third party contractor if they had been maliciously included GPL code and representing it as their own proprietary code. The fact that they hadn't make it look like it's a big horrible oversight on MS's part.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well typically GPL'ed code is supposed to be released together with the license , often as comments at the top of the files , or as a LICENSE.txt file together with the package.If you suspect that the third party contractor could be maliciously including GPLed code with license stripped out ( why are you working with them in the first place ? ?
) you could use http : //www.google.com/codesearch [ google.com ] I 'd expect MS to be suing the pants off the third party contractor if they had been maliciously included GPL code and representing it as their own proprietary code .
The fact that they had n't make it look like it 's a big horrible oversight on MS 's part .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well typically GPL'ed code is supposed to be released together with the license, often as comments at the top of the files, or as a LICENSE.txt file together with the package.If you suspect that the third party contractor could be maliciously including GPLed code with license stripped out (why are you working with them in the first place??
) you could use http://www.google.com/codesearch [google.com]I'd expect MS to be suing the pants off the third party contractor if they had been maliciously included GPL code and representing it as their own proprietary code.
The fact that they hadn't make it look like it's a big horrible oversight on MS's part.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093898</id>
	<title>Re:Death of one old bag of baloney?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258120740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt;MS at one point tried to say that, if something like this happened, you'd have to release all your source code.
<br> <br>
[Citation Needed] [Context Needed]</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; MS at one point tried to say that , if something like this happened , you 'd have to release all your source code .
[ Citation Needed ] [ Context Needed ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;MS at one point tried to say that, if something like this happened, you'd have to release all your source code.
[Citation Needed] [Context Needed]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093594</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30094292</id>
	<title>Re:Give some credit</title>
	<author>PhasmatisApparatus</author>
	<datestamp>1258124520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't think Microsoft will keep a GPL program floating around when they could could put a few developers on the project and have an identical (Microsoft-owned) tool in a matter of days.<br> <br>

If it were me, I'd keep it around as a reminder to do better code reviews!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think Microsoft will keep a GPL program floating around when they could could put a few developers on the project and have an identical ( Microsoft-owned ) tool in a matter of days .
If it were me , I 'd keep it around as a reminder to do better code reviews !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think Microsoft will keep a GPL program floating around when they could could put a few developers on the project and have an identical (Microsoft-owned) tool in a matter of days.
If it were me, I'd keep it around as a reminder to do better code reviews!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093532</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30094246</id>
	<title>Re:Good on MS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258123800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you worked at Microsoft, you'd know that it takes patience and time away from the horrific workload and schedules to code review every third-party thing that came through the door.  When I worked at Microsoft, our vendor routinely used code they weren't supposed to EVEN THOUGH it was in their contract not to.  I would sometimes come across a bug somewhere and I'd find something stolen off the net, and I'd have to pull it and reprimand the vendor, and then get them to do the work and pay them for it again.

It's easy to sit at your computer desk and pontificate about how MS is trying to pull a fast one on everyone.  Shit, if you only knew how ingrained in the culture it is to homegrow everything, and steal nothing.  Very strong corporate policies there at MS, and everyone is subject to disciplinary action if you've intentionally tried to pull a fast one in one way shape or form.

Trust me, the Program Manager who owns that tool is shitting in his/her pants, as it's going on their performance review for not tightening up on code quality.  From my experience there, MS takes this shit seriously.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you worked at Microsoft , you 'd know that it takes patience and time away from the horrific workload and schedules to code review every third-party thing that came through the door .
When I worked at Microsoft , our vendor routinely used code they were n't supposed to EVEN THOUGH it was in their contract not to .
I would sometimes come across a bug somewhere and I 'd find something stolen off the net , and I 'd have to pull it and reprimand the vendor , and then get them to do the work and pay them for it again .
It 's easy to sit at your computer desk and pontificate about how MS is trying to pull a fast one on everyone .
Shit , if you only knew how ingrained in the culture it is to homegrow everything , and steal nothing .
Very strong corporate policies there at MS , and everyone is subject to disciplinary action if you 've intentionally tried to pull a fast one in one way shape or form .
Trust me , the Program Manager who owns that tool is shitting in his/her pants , as it 's going on their performance review for not tightening up on code quality .
From my experience there , MS takes this shit seriously .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you worked at Microsoft, you'd know that it takes patience and time away from the horrific workload and schedules to code review every third-party thing that came through the door.
When I worked at Microsoft, our vendor routinely used code they weren't supposed to EVEN THOUGH it was in their contract not to.
I would sometimes come across a bug somewhere and I'd find something stolen off the net, and I'd have to pull it and reprimand the vendor, and then get them to do the work and pay them for it again.
It's easy to sit at your computer desk and pontificate about how MS is trying to pull a fast one on everyone.
Shit, if you only knew how ingrained in the culture it is to homegrow everything, and steal nothing.
Very strong corporate policies there at MS, and everyone is subject to disciplinary action if you've intentionally tried to pull a fast one in one way shape or form.
Trust me, the Program Manager who owns that tool is shitting in his/her pants, as it's going on their performance review for not tightening up on code quality.
From my experience there, MS takes this shit seriously.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30094324</id>
	<title>Fair Play</title>
	<author>Dartz-IRL</author>
	<datestamp>1258124880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's all that need be said. Microsoft realised it was in the wrong, and took steps to correct it. They didn't stonewall, they didn't hide. I must admit to being pleasantly surprised. Microsoft themselves place great importance on respecting software licenses/copyright, and it's nice to see them practice when it comes to other people's copyrights.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's all that need be said .
Microsoft realised it was in the wrong , and took steps to correct it .
They did n't stonewall , they did n't hide .
I must admit to being pleasantly surprised .
Microsoft themselves place great importance on respecting software licenses/copyright , and it 's nice to see them practice when it comes to other people 's copyrights .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's all that need be said.
Microsoft realised it was in the wrong, and took steps to correct it.
They didn't stonewall, they didn't hide.
I must admit to being pleasantly surprised.
Microsoft themselves place great importance on respecting software licenses/copyright, and it's nice to see them practice when it comes to other people's copyrights.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30103692</id>
	<title>Re:New eye advice sought</title>
	<author>PineGreen</author>
	<datestamp>1258219260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, how did you manage to type this with exploded eyes? Surely, you can touchtype, but mousing skills required...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , how did you manage to type this with exploded eyes ?
Surely , you can touchtype , but mousing skills required.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, how did you manage to type this with exploded eyes?
Surely, you can touchtype, but mousing skills required...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093946</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30095478</id>
	<title>Re:Wow look what happened...</title>
	<author>Alex Belits</author>
	<datestamp>1258140600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>RFC 1925:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>RFC 1925 : With sufficient thrust , pigs fly just fine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>RFC 1925:With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30099638</id>
	<title>Msft has not been acting in good faith</title>
	<author>walterbyrd</author>
	<datestamp>1258228560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Msft has openly declared war on foss, and has pulled numerous under-handed, maybe even downright illegal, stunts to kill off any foss competition. From bribing officials to get to OOXML passed as an open standard, to financing the scox scam, to rigging a patent lawsuit against redhat, and so much more.</p><p>If this was the first time that msft stepped out of line, I think people would find it a lot easier to forgive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Msft has openly declared war on foss , and has pulled numerous under-handed , maybe even downright illegal , stunts to kill off any foss competition .
From bribing officials to get to OOXML passed as an open standard , to financing the scox scam , to rigging a patent lawsuit against redhat , and so much more.If this was the first time that msft stepped out of line , I think people would find it a lot easier to forgive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Msft has openly declared war on foss, and has pulled numerous under-handed, maybe even downright illegal, stunts to kill off any foss competition.
From bribing officials to get to OOXML passed as an open standard, to financing the scox scam, to rigging a patent lawsuit against redhat, and so much more.If this was the first time that msft stepped out of line, I think people would find it a lot easier to forgive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093908</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30095668</id>
	<title>Re:Code Review</title>
	<author>weicco</author>
	<datestamp>1258230420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I'd expect MS to be suing the pants off the third party contractor if they had been maliciously included GPL code and representing it as their own proprietary code.</p></div></blockquote><p>Well they certainly could and should but so should the actual copyright holder too. His/her rights were violated by this third party contractor for not including GPL license in the package that went to Microsoft. Microsoft's case against the third party wouldn't be about copyrights but possible contract violation(s). That's a pretty tricky area of law so maybe Microsoft doesn't like to go to the court unprepared. At least I wouldn't<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd expect MS to be suing the pants off the third party contractor if they had been maliciously included GPL code and representing it as their own proprietary code.Well they certainly could and should but so should the actual copyright holder too .
His/her rights were violated by this third party contractor for not including GPL license in the package that went to Microsoft .
Microsoft 's case against the third party would n't be about copyrights but possible contract violation ( s ) .
That 's a pretty tricky area of law so maybe Microsoft does n't like to go to the court unprepared .
At least I would n't : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd expect MS to be suing the pants off the third party contractor if they had been maliciously included GPL code and representing it as their own proprietary code.Well they certainly could and should but so should the actual copyright holder too.
His/her rights were violated by this third party contractor for not including GPL license in the package that went to Microsoft.
Microsoft's case against the third party wouldn't be about copyrights but possible contract violation(s).
That's a pretty tricky area of law so maybe Microsoft doesn't like to go to the court unprepared.
At least I wouldn't :)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30094544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30094750</id>
	<title>Re:Code Review</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258129680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is there any reason why Microsoft cannot mirror open repositories (they are already in the mirroring business, aren't they?) and perhaps compare their code base to it?  Wouldn't that be in their best interest for identifying their stolen code in the wild, if there ever was any?  If Microsoft really are at the center of technology, how could they be ignorant of what technology can do for their business?</p><p>If this is not a sign of mismanagement at Microsoft, I don't know what is.  Their putrid corporate culture needs to be replaced, but the sense of entitlement that technologist cum executives feel for their peer group will prevent that from happening so long as the shareholders drink the Kool Aid.  Microsoft's resources go to waste feeding those that feel they earned their place.  A fine example of "Fuck You, Got Mine."</p><p>All of this has a cost to the earth and its denizens, who are also bound to this company's software.  Let us not forget the actions they took to enslave mankind, and the price we have paid.  They drain us of our resources by making high-cost software, and the return we reap is low.</p><p>I'm willing to forgive Microsoft at some point.  They have amassed resources and supposedly high technology, they are likely to thrive at some point and return to the world what it has taken.  They must be a trimmer company by then.  They must be willing to conduct business honestly and efficiently.  Until then, I will treat them for what they are: a parasite that grows fatter every day.</p><p>A message to all senior staff at Microsoft: embrace change, and remember that working is not optional for the grateful.  We should repay every good human who has worked to make this world a better place.  To feed from the world and not give back betrays our struggle to survive as a species.  The entitled are a net detractor to our goal.</p><p>Death to entitlement.<br>Death to selfishness.</p><p>Change the world: reject these things, and condemn them to death.  We must change.  We must evolve.  Allow the human brain to change by denying the concepts that underlie these terrible behaviours.  We evolved these things, we can evolve them away, too.  The world will be a better place without them.  It's sad that we won't be around to see it, but it is we who must make the first steps.  Do it for those who have done much greater for us.  Do it for our descendants.</p><p>We don't need to worry about ourselves as long as we care for each other.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is there any reason why Microsoft can not mirror open repositories ( they are already in the mirroring business , are n't they ?
) and perhaps compare their code base to it ?
Would n't that be in their best interest for identifying their stolen code in the wild , if there ever was any ?
If Microsoft really are at the center of technology , how could they be ignorant of what technology can do for their business ? If this is not a sign of mismanagement at Microsoft , I do n't know what is .
Their putrid corporate culture needs to be replaced , but the sense of entitlement that technologist cum executives feel for their peer group will prevent that from happening so long as the shareholders drink the Kool Aid .
Microsoft 's resources go to waste feeding those that feel they earned their place .
A fine example of " Fuck You , Got Mine .
" All of this has a cost to the earth and its denizens , who are also bound to this company 's software .
Let us not forget the actions they took to enslave mankind , and the price we have paid .
They drain us of our resources by making high-cost software , and the return we reap is low.I 'm willing to forgive Microsoft at some point .
They have amassed resources and supposedly high technology , they are likely to thrive at some point and return to the world what it has taken .
They must be a trimmer company by then .
They must be willing to conduct business honestly and efficiently .
Until then , I will treat them for what they are : a parasite that grows fatter every day.A message to all senior staff at Microsoft : embrace change , and remember that working is not optional for the grateful .
We should repay every good human who has worked to make this world a better place .
To feed from the world and not give back betrays our struggle to survive as a species .
The entitled are a net detractor to our goal.Death to entitlement.Death to selfishness.Change the world : reject these things , and condemn them to death .
We must change .
We must evolve .
Allow the human brain to change by denying the concepts that underlie these terrible behaviours .
We evolved these things , we can evolve them away , too .
The world will be a better place without them .
It 's sad that we wo n't be around to see it , but it is we who must make the first steps .
Do it for those who have done much greater for us .
Do it for our descendants.We do n't need to worry about ourselves as long as we care for each other .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is there any reason why Microsoft cannot mirror open repositories (they are already in the mirroring business, aren't they?
) and perhaps compare their code base to it?
Wouldn't that be in their best interest for identifying their stolen code in the wild, if there ever was any?
If Microsoft really are at the center of technology, how could they be ignorant of what technology can do for their business?If this is not a sign of mismanagement at Microsoft, I don't know what is.
Their putrid corporate culture needs to be replaced, but the sense of entitlement that technologist cum executives feel for their peer group will prevent that from happening so long as the shareholders drink the Kool Aid.
Microsoft's resources go to waste feeding those that feel they earned their place.
A fine example of "Fuck You, Got Mine.
"All of this has a cost to the earth and its denizens, who are also bound to this company's software.
Let us not forget the actions they took to enslave mankind, and the price we have paid.
They drain us of our resources by making high-cost software, and the return we reap is low.I'm willing to forgive Microsoft at some point.
They have amassed resources and supposedly high technology, they are likely to thrive at some point and return to the world what it has taken.
They must be a trimmer company by then.
They must be willing to conduct business honestly and efficiently.
Until then, I will treat them for what they are: a parasite that grows fatter every day.A message to all senior staff at Microsoft: embrace change, and remember that working is not optional for the grateful.
We should repay every good human who has worked to make this world a better place.
To feed from the world and not give back betrays our struggle to survive as a species.
The entitled are a net detractor to our goal.Death to entitlement.Death to selfishness.Change the world: reject these things, and condemn them to death.
We must change.
We must evolve.
Allow the human brain to change by denying the concepts that underlie these terrible behaviours.
We evolved these things, we can evolve them away, too.
The world will be a better place without them.
It's sad that we won't be around to see it, but it is we who must make the first steps.
Do it for those who have done much greater for us.
Do it for our descendants.We don't need to worry about ourselves as long as we care for each other.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30102022</id>
	<title>Sue 'Em For Millions</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1258202520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Indeed - the point is that they've already committed copyright infringement, releasing source code after the fact is irrelevant. This is the equivalent to someone getting sued for filesharing, and then offering to pay for the CD they copied. Does that get them off the hook? Of course not.</p><p>So perhaps they should be sued for a few million dollars. Maybe they ought to be disconnected from the Internet too...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed - the point is that they 've already committed copyright infringement , releasing source code after the fact is irrelevant .
This is the equivalent to someone getting sued for filesharing , and then offering to pay for the CD they copied .
Does that get them off the hook ?
Of course not.So perhaps they should be sued for a few million dollars .
Maybe they ought to be disconnected from the Internet too.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed - the point is that they've already committed copyright infringement, releasing source code after the fact is irrelevant.
This is the equivalent to someone getting sued for filesharing, and then offering to pay for the CD they copied.
Does that get them off the hook?
Of course not.So perhaps they should be sued for a few million dollars.
Maybe they ought to be disconnected from the Internet too...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30094472</id>
	<title>I'm just curious...</title>
	<author>sphantom</author>
	<datestamp>1258126500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why is Microsoft farming out the programming of a relatively simple tool when they have 10s of thousands of programmers and consultants on their payroll? Issues like this are exactly why you shouldn't outsource work when you already have employees that could do the job.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is Microsoft farming out the programming of a relatively simple tool when they have 10s of thousands of programmers and consultants on their payroll ?
Issues like this are exactly why you should n't outsource work when you already have employees that could do the job .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is Microsoft farming out the programming of a relatively simple tool when they have 10s of thousands of programmers and consultants on their payroll?
Issues like this are exactly why you shouldn't outsource work when you already have employees that could do the job.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30097782</id>
	<title>Re:Implications - Teaching IP Law</title>
	<author>GrantRobertson</author>
	<datestamp>1258216680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>More universities should include a course in IP law and open source licensing in their computer science programs. I know none of the programs I have looked at teach it. Perhaps at some of the better schools...</htmltext>
<tokenext>More universities should include a course in IP law and open source licensing in their computer science programs .
I know none of the programs I have looked at teach it .
Perhaps at some of the better schools.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More universities should include a course in IP law and open source licensing in their computer science programs.
I know none of the programs I have looked at teach it.
Perhaps at some of the better schools...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093582</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093858</id>
	<title>Re:Code Review</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258120500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Question: how can you tell GPL code is GPL code unless you know that it's GPL code?  My point is that code reviews are cool, but they cannot catch things that the reviewers don't know to look for.  And it's impossible for anyone to be familiar with every piece of GPL'd code out there, and it's impossible to build a database of such code.  The best way to handle it was the way that they handled it.  Someone found the error, told MS, and MS became compliant by releasing the code.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Question : how can you tell GPL code is GPL code unless you know that it 's GPL code ?
My point is that code reviews are cool , but they can not catch things that the reviewers do n't know to look for .
And it 's impossible for anyone to be familiar with every piece of GPL 'd code out there , and it 's impossible to build a database of such code .
The best way to handle it was the way that they handled it .
Someone found the error , told MS , and MS became compliant by releasing the code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Question: how can you tell GPL code is GPL code unless you know that it's GPL code?
My point is that code reviews are cool, but they cannot catch things that the reviewers don't know to look for.
And it's impossible for anyone to be familiar with every piece of GPL'd code out there, and it's impossible to build a database of such code.
The best way to handle it was the way that they handled it.
Someone found the error, told MS, and MS became compliant by releasing the code.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093472</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30101906</id>
	<title>Yeah, now you comply with our patents!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258201800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Clever trick. First they include some GPL code then when it is pointed out to them they apologize and comply with the GPL. Now just wait for the day that they point out the breach of a Microsoft patent. They or their shills will remind the community about their own compliance and contrast it with the failure to immediately comply by the Linux people.</p><p>Or not. Who can tell.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Clever trick .
First they include some GPL code then when it is pointed out to them they apologize and comply with the GPL .
Now just wait for the day that they point out the breach of a Microsoft patent .
They or their shills will remind the community about their own compliance and contrast it with the failure to immediately comply by the Linux people.Or not .
Who can tell .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Clever trick.
First they include some GPL code then when it is pointed out to them they apologize and comply with the GPL.
Now just wait for the day that they point out the breach of a Microsoft patent.
They or their shills will remind the community about their own compliance and contrast it with the failure to immediately comply by the Linux people.Or not.
Who can tell.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30102202</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, so it's ok then</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258203780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The GPL  is based on copyright law.  It's a principle called "copyleft", but it is firmly rooted in copyright law.</p><p>I agree with your point about not crucifying them.  What you may not realize is that the enforcement pendulum has swung back now.  The GPL was created to counter threats to freedom by dominant, proprietary regimes.  The viability of the GPL is in little doubt now, however.  Enforcement is expected all-around.</p><p>I have yet to see the FSF abuse their power in enforcing the GPL, but you can expect me to abandon ship when they do.  What I have seen, is many shrill individuals.  The battle about being heard is over; what is needed now is pragmatic solutions between the big players, which this event seems to illustrate is possible.</p><p>Please realize that those that speak the loudest aren't necessarily the ones to listen to.  These are the ones that seem to advocate double-standards over mutual respect.  The GPL is worthy of respect as are proprietary vendors.  While I will continue to prefer non-proprietary in the near future, I welcome a world where proprietary vendors provide real value-added services for a price.  This can only help to maintain a healthy ecology of competitive innovation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The GPL is based on copyright law .
It 's a principle called " copyleft " , but it is firmly rooted in copyright law.I agree with your point about not crucifying them .
What you may not realize is that the enforcement pendulum has swung back now .
The GPL was created to counter threats to freedom by dominant , proprietary regimes .
The viability of the GPL is in little doubt now , however .
Enforcement is expected all-around.I have yet to see the FSF abuse their power in enforcing the GPL , but you can expect me to abandon ship when they do .
What I have seen , is many shrill individuals .
The battle about being heard is over ; what is needed now is pragmatic solutions between the big players , which this event seems to illustrate is possible.Please realize that those that speak the loudest are n't necessarily the ones to listen to .
These are the ones that seem to advocate double-standards over mutual respect .
The GPL is worthy of respect as are proprietary vendors .
While I will continue to prefer non-proprietary in the near future , I welcome a world where proprietary vendors provide real value-added services for a price .
This can only help to maintain a healthy ecology of competitive innovation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The GPL  is based on copyright law.
It's a principle called "copyleft", but it is firmly rooted in copyright law.I agree with your point about not crucifying them.
What you may not realize is that the enforcement pendulum has swung back now.
The GPL was created to counter threats to freedom by dominant, proprietary regimes.
The viability of the GPL is in little doubt now, however.
Enforcement is expected all-around.I have yet to see the FSF abuse their power in enforcing the GPL, but you can expect me to abandon ship when they do.
What I have seen, is many shrill individuals.
The battle about being heard is over; what is needed now is pragmatic solutions between the big players, which this event seems to illustrate is possible.Please realize that those that speak the loudest aren't necessarily the ones to listen to.
These are the ones that seem to advocate double-standards over mutual respect.
The GPL is worthy of respect as are proprietary vendors.
While I will continue to prefer non-proprietary in the near future, I welcome a world where proprietary vendors provide real value-added services for a price.
This can only help to maintain a healthy ecology of competitive innovation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093908</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30102138</id>
	<title>GPL is like cancer?</title>
	<author>d\_jedi</author>
	<datestamp>1258203180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So because the software tool in question used SOME GPL code (as well as plenty of custom code written by Microsoft or its contractors)..  MS is forced to release the ENTIRE SOURCE CODE for the software.</p><p>Does this not confirm Ballmer's statement from a few years back that the GPL was like cancer?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So because the software tool in question used SOME GPL code ( as well as plenty of custom code written by Microsoft or its contractors ) .. MS is forced to release the ENTIRE SOURCE CODE for the software.Does this not confirm Ballmer 's statement from a few years back that the GPL was like cancer ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So because the software tool in question used SOME GPL code (as well as plenty of custom code written by Microsoft or its contractors)..  MS is forced to release the ENTIRE SOURCE CODE for the software.Does this not confirm Ballmer's statement from a few years back that the GPL was like cancer?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30094824</id>
	<title>Re:Give some credit</title>
	<author>db32</author>
	<datestamp>1258130640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Assuming they didn't do this on purpose sure, why not...</p><p>Or...they knowingly use GPL code, allow it to be discovered, pull the tool, "review it", and then release it as GPL...  Then resume the talk about how it is "cancerous" and "socialist" and how it "infects" code.  Now they have a 100\% valid example of GPL forcing open a tool in the "cancerous" and "infectious" ways they claim it does.</p><p>I'm not saying that that is what is happening here, but let's not go running out to celebrate our victory over the evil empire just yet.  These guys aren't exactly stupid when it comes to manipulative shit like this.</p><p>My CAPTCHA is "sadden".  How disturbingly appropriate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Assuming they did n't do this on purpose sure , why not...Or...they knowingly use GPL code , allow it to be discovered , pull the tool , " review it " , and then release it as GPL... Then resume the talk about how it is " cancerous " and " socialist " and how it " infects " code .
Now they have a 100 \ % valid example of GPL forcing open a tool in the " cancerous " and " infectious " ways they claim it does.I 'm not saying that that is what is happening here , but let 's not go running out to celebrate our victory over the evil empire just yet .
These guys are n't exactly stupid when it comes to manipulative shit like this.My CAPTCHA is " sadden " .
How disturbingly appropriate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Assuming they didn't do this on purpose sure, why not...Or...they knowingly use GPL code, allow it to be discovered, pull the tool, "review it", and then release it as GPL...  Then resume the talk about how it is "cancerous" and "socialist" and how it "infects" code.
Now they have a 100\% valid example of GPL forcing open a tool in the "cancerous" and "infectious" ways they claim it does.I'm not saying that that is what is happening here, but let's not go running out to celebrate our victory over the evil empire just yet.
These guys aren't exactly stupid when it comes to manipulative shit like this.My CAPTCHA is "sadden".
How disturbingly appropriate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093532</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30094702</id>
	<title>Re:Code Review</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258129260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And it's impossible for anyone to be familiar with every piece of GPL'd code out there, and it's impossible to build a database of such code.</p></div><p>Well, at least <a href="http://www.blackducksoftware.com/knowledgebase" title="blackducksoftware.com">one company</a> [blackducksoftware.com] is trying to do just that, and to help companies avoid this very problem.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And it 's impossible for anyone to be familiar with every piece of GPL 'd code out there , and it 's impossible to build a database of such code.Well , at least one company [ blackducksoftware.com ] is trying to do just that , and to help companies avoid this very problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And it's impossible for anyone to be familiar with every piece of GPL'd code out there, and it's impossible to build a database of such code.Well, at least one company [blackducksoftware.com] is trying to do just that, and to help companies avoid this very problem.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30095374</id>
	<title>Re:Code Review</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258138560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But there already IS a database of GPL'd code, several, in fact. It's called the source code for whatever distro you are using, and just happens to be included with the software (as long as the GPL license is adhered to). Just because it isn't as nicely organized as your average lending library doesn't mean it's not there.</p><p>All MS needs to do is have a copy of or a link to every distro publicly available that uses GPL'd code.</p><p>Oh, wait, maybe that IS a bit much to ask. Erm, never mind.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But there already IS a database of GPL 'd code , several , in fact .
It 's called the source code for whatever distro you are using , and just happens to be included with the software ( as long as the GPL license is adhered to ) .
Just because it is n't as nicely organized as your average lending library does n't mean it 's not there.All MS needs to do is have a copy of or a link to every distro publicly available that uses GPL 'd code.Oh , wait , maybe that IS a bit much to ask .
Erm , never mind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But there already IS a database of GPL'd code, several, in fact.
It's called the source code for whatever distro you are using, and just happens to be included with the software (as long as the GPL license is adhered to).
Just because it isn't as nicely organized as your average lending library doesn't mean it's not there.All MS needs to do is have a copy of or a link to every distro publicly available that uses GPL'd code.Oh, wait, maybe that IS a bit much to ask.
Erm, never mind.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093806</id>
	<title>Have a candy bar</title>
	<author>beej</author>
	<datestamp>1258119960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"I'm going to take back some of the things I've said about you, Microsoft.  You--you've earned it."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I 'm going to take back some of the things I 've said about you , Microsoft .
You--you 've earned it .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I'm going to take back some of the things I've said about you, Microsoft.
You--you've earned it.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093714</id>
	<title>Re:Give some credit</title>
	<author>the\_humeister</author>
	<datestamp>1258119120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is Slashdot! Everything MS does is bad. Everything, no questions asked! I mean, they won't even answer allegations that they sacrifice babies at the altar.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is Slashdot !
Everything MS does is bad .
Everything , no questions asked !
I mean , they wo n't even answer allegations that they sacrifice babies at the altar .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is Slashdot!
Everything MS does is bad.
Everything, no questions asked!
I mean, they won't even answer allegations that they sacrifice babies at the altar.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093532</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30097752</id>
	<title>Re:Half full is half empty</title>
	<author>Courageous</author>
	<datestamp>1258216380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>That's pretty big of you, oh great Slashdot community, since they've basically done what any presumably expensive legal team would tell them, no?</i></p><p>Mmmmm. No. Presumably their expensive legal team told them to "release source code or cease infringement." The latter involves replacing the offending code, and potentially paying a fine. For whatever reason, they chose the former. At a guess, they looked at the relative value of the program itself, as well as community value to their label for their choice of license compliance, and made an informed decision.</p><p>If Microsoft later says they were "forced" to release their source code, it will be a bald faced lie, because you can be sure that their corporate counsel isn't incompetent.</p><p>C//</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's pretty big of you , oh great Slashdot community , since they 've basically done what any presumably expensive legal team would tell them , no ? Mmmmm .
No. Presumably their expensive legal team told them to " release source code or cease infringement .
" The latter involves replacing the offending code , and potentially paying a fine .
For whatever reason , they chose the former .
At a guess , they looked at the relative value of the program itself , as well as community value to their label for their choice of license compliance , and made an informed decision.If Microsoft later says they were " forced " to release their source code , it will be a bald faced lie , because you can be sure that their corporate counsel is n't incompetent.C//</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's pretty big of you, oh great Slashdot community, since they've basically done what any presumably expensive legal team would tell them, no?Mmmmm.
No. Presumably their expensive legal team told them to "release source code or cease infringement.
" The latter involves replacing the offending code, and potentially paying a fine.
For whatever reason, they chose the former.
At a guess, they looked at the relative value of the program itself, as well as community value to their label for their choice of license compliance, and made an informed decision.If Microsoft later says they were "forced" to release their source code, it will be a bald faced lie, because you can be sure that their corporate counsel isn't incompetent.C//</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30095714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30100988</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, so it's ok then</title>
	<author>cyber-vandal</author>
	<datestamp>1258195020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Any other company this would not be big news.  However a company with a long history of copyright violations and other illegal practices doesn't get let off so easily.  Much like any other habitual criminal, people remain suspicious for a long time and the criminal has to be whiter than white for a long time before that trust is earned again.  It's not that hard to understand really.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Any other company this would not be big news .
However a company with a long history of copyright violations and other illegal practices does n't get let off so easily .
Much like any other habitual criminal , people remain suspicious for a long time and the criminal has to be whiter than white for a long time before that trust is earned again .
It 's not that hard to understand really .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any other company this would not be big news.
However a company with a long history of copyright violations and other illegal practices doesn't get let off so easily.
Much like any other habitual criminal, people remain suspicious for a long time and the criminal has to be whiter than white for a long time before that trust is earned again.
It's not that hard to understand really.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093908</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30096530</id>
	<title>too bad</title>
	<author>pmarini</author>
	<datestamp>1258203660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>too bad that the IP stack or Mosaic were not released under GPL by BSD and NCSA... could you imagine Microsoft publishing the whole Windows XP code... "Internet Explorer cannot be disabled because it's an integral part of the operating system..."</htmltext>
<tokenext>too bad that the IP stack or Mosaic were not released under GPL by BSD and NCSA... could you imagine Microsoft publishing the whole Windows XP code... " Internet Explorer can not be disabled because it 's an integral part of the operating system... "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>too bad that the IP stack or Mosaic were not released under GPL by BSD and NCSA... could you imagine Microsoft publishing the whole Windows XP code... "Internet Explorer cannot be disabled because it's an integral part of the operating system..."</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30096544</id>
	<title>THe True Story</title>
	<author>Provocateur</author>
	<datestamp>1258203780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the offices of the Third Party, there is a buzz in the air:</p><p>"What do you mean, Microsoft is buying our company? Us?"</p><p>"What did we do to attract their attention?"</p><p>"This app that they've included from us was worthy, it seems."</p><p>"That's great! We can retire early!"</p><p>While in his quiet corner in his cubicle, Mr. CodeWarrior reading<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. looks up and realizes what no one<br>else is:</p><p>"They're buying us so we can take the fall--we're the patsy!"</p><p>( cue ominous music as he spits out his coffee )</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the offices of the Third Party , there is a buzz in the air : " What do you mean , Microsoft is buying our company ?
Us ? " " What did we do to attract their attention ?
" " This app that they 've included from us was worthy , it seems .
" " That 's great !
We can retire early !
" While in his quiet corner in his cubicle , Mr. CodeWarrior reading / .
looks up and realizes what no oneelse is : " They 're buying us so we can take the fall--we 're the patsy !
" ( cue ominous music as he spits out his coffee )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the offices of the Third Party, there is a buzz in the air:"What do you mean, Microsoft is buying our company?
Us?""What did we do to attract their attention?
""This app that they've included from us was worthy, it seems.
""That's great!
We can retire early!
"While in his quiet corner in his cubicle, Mr. CodeWarrior reading /.
looks up and realizes what no oneelse is:"They're buying us so we can take the fall--we're the patsy!
"( cue ominous music as he spits out his coffee )</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093512</id>
	<title>a big round of thanks to that outside contractor!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258117800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>If I knew who it was, I'd be starting a fund to send flowers and champagne to their HQ.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I knew who it was , I 'd be starting a fund to send flowers and champagne to their HQ .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I knew who it was, I'd be starting a fund to send flowers and champagne to their HQ.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093726</id>
	<title>Cue the commercial</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258119180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Windows 7 will have none of the GPL violations Vista had.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Windows Vista will have none of the GPL violations XP had.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Windows 2000 will have none of the GPL violations ME had.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Windows 98 will have none of the GPL violations 95 had.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Windows 7 will have none of the GPL violations Vista had .
... Windows Vista will have none of the GPL violations XP had .
... Windows 2000 will have none of the GPL violations ME had .
... Windows 98 will have none of the GPL violations 95 had .
.... "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Windows 7 will have none of the GPL violations Vista had.
... Windows Vista will have none of the GPL violations XP had.
... Windows 2000 will have none of the GPL violations ME had.
... Windows 98 will have none of the GPL violations 95 had.
...."</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30095958</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, so it's ok then</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258193040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Under v2 the remedy is asking for forgiveness.  You can't distribute the code further unless the copyright holder forgives you.  Since this can be very difficult in practice, it's a serious weakness of v2.  In v3 the situation is improved.  Since I think this code was under v2, hopefully it had the "or later version" clause still intact.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Under v2 the remedy is asking for forgiveness .
You ca n't distribute the code further unless the copyright holder forgives you .
Since this can be very difficult in practice , it 's a serious weakness of v2 .
In v3 the situation is improved .
Since I think this code was under v2 , hopefully it had the " or later version " clause still intact .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Under v2 the remedy is asking for forgiveness.
You can't distribute the code further unless the copyright holder forgives you.
Since this can be very difficult in practice, it's a serious weakness of v2.
In v3 the situation is improved.
Since I think this code was under v2, hopefully it had the "or later version" clause still intact.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093942</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093452</id>
	<title>Good on MS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258117440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Awesome!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Awesome !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Awesome!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093474</id>
	<title>Wow look what happened...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258117560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey folks, did you see that pig fly?? It was quite impressive. So fat, and trumped. Never thought it would get off the ground... But there it went...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey folks , did you see that pig fly ? ?
It was quite impressive .
So fat , and trumped .
Never thought it would get off the ground... But there it went.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey folks, did you see that pig fly??
It was quite impressive.
So fat, and trumped.
Never thought it would get off the ground... But there it went...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093706</id>
	<title>Re:How did they miss that?</title>
	<author>ivan256</author>
	<datestamp>1258119060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The main tool out there to do that is from Black Duck, and it's an unmitigated piece of trash that is designed for the sole purpose of scamming stupid CTOs and CEOs.</p><p>Their piece of crap database isn't even audited, so it attributes tons of code to people who stole it themselves and lists it under the wrong license. Then, if that wasn't enough, it produces so many false positives that anybody tasked with running it sets it up just enough to appease their incompetent boss while routing the results directly to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/dev/null.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The main tool out there to do that is from Black Duck , and it 's an unmitigated piece of trash that is designed for the sole purpose of scamming stupid CTOs and CEOs.Their piece of crap database is n't even audited , so it attributes tons of code to people who stole it themselves and lists it under the wrong license .
Then , if that was n't enough , it produces so many false positives that anybody tasked with running it sets it up just enough to appease their incompetent boss while routing the results directly to /dev/null .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The main tool out there to do that is from Black Duck, and it's an unmitigated piece of trash that is designed for the sole purpose of scamming stupid CTOs and CEOs.Their piece of crap database isn't even audited, so it attributes tons of code to people who stole it themselves and lists it under the wrong license.
Then, if that wasn't enough, it produces so many false positives that anybody tasked with running it sets it up just enough to appease their incompetent boss while routing the results directly to /dev/null.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093508</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30096064</id>
	<title>Re:Code Review</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258195080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google it</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google it</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google it</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30095466</id>
	<title>FAT filesystem?</title>
	<author>ebydav</author>
	<datestamp>1258140300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Since it's used to set up a USB flash drive, does the tool happen to contain code to read/write to a FAT filesystem?  Would be interesting to see that particular arrow removed from their patent quiver...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since it 's used to set up a USB flash drive , does the tool happen to contain code to read/write to a FAT filesystem ?
Would be interesting to see that particular arrow removed from their patent quiver.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since it's used to set up a USB flash drive, does the tool happen to contain code to read/write to a FAT filesystem?
Would be interesting to see that particular arrow removed from their patent quiver...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30094410</id>
	<title>Re:Give some credit</title>
	<author>Kjella</author>
	<datestamp>1258125480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If we think of them a little bit as a company and not the anti-RMS, why would they bother now? They're complying, the tool works.... what's the business case? Big companies like to use open source when it's to their advantage. like one vendor I'm familiar with, they are now pushing Linux, Tomcat and many open standards but they're very clearly closed source on top.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If we think of them a little bit as a company and not the anti-RMS , why would they bother now ?
They 're complying , the tool works.... what 's the business case ?
Big companies like to use open source when it 's to their advantage .
like one vendor I 'm familiar with , they are now pushing Linux , Tomcat and many open standards but they 're very clearly closed source on top .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If we think of them a little bit as a company and not the anti-RMS, why would they bother now?
They're complying, the tool works.... what's the business case?
Big companies like to use open source when it's to their advantage.
like one vendor I'm familiar with, they are now pushing Linux, Tomcat and many open standards but they're very clearly closed source on top.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093532</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093582</id>
	<title>Implications</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258118160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wouldn't want to be the consulting company that provided Microsoft with this code. They're in some deep doo-doo now. Unfortunately, a lot of engineers are so clueless about licensing, as are their managers, that it is really possible that the person who did this didn't know it was a problem.</p><p>
But this is not anything new for Microsoft. Microsoft started contributing to GCC around 10 years ago, for the former Unix services product. And this really serves their purpose if they are trying to scare people away from the GPL. "Microsoft forced to give up source code."</p><p>
Where they are really hurting us now is in government policy and patented technology in interoperability facilities. Like the European Interoperability Framework going proprietary, and the MS-patented filesystem in next-generation FLASH devices. Consider stuff like that before you decide they are a "good citizen".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would n't want to be the consulting company that provided Microsoft with this code .
They 're in some deep doo-doo now .
Unfortunately , a lot of engineers are so clueless about licensing , as are their managers , that it is really possible that the person who did this did n't know it was a problem .
But this is not anything new for Microsoft .
Microsoft started contributing to GCC around 10 years ago , for the former Unix services product .
And this really serves their purpose if they are trying to scare people away from the GPL .
" Microsoft forced to give up source code .
" Where they are really hurting us now is in government policy and patented technology in interoperability facilities .
Like the European Interoperability Framework going proprietary , and the MS-patented filesystem in next-generation FLASH devices .
Consider stuff like that before you decide they are a " good citizen " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wouldn't want to be the consulting company that provided Microsoft with this code.
They're in some deep doo-doo now.
Unfortunately, a lot of engineers are so clueless about licensing, as are their managers, that it is really possible that the person who did this didn't know it was a problem.
But this is not anything new for Microsoft.
Microsoft started contributing to GCC around 10 years ago, for the former Unix services product.
And this really serves their purpose if they are trying to scare people away from the GPL.
"Microsoft forced to give up source code.
"
Where they are really hurting us now is in government policy and patented technology in interoperability facilities.
Like the European Interoperability Framework going proprietary, and the MS-patented filesystem in next-generation FLASH devices.
Consider stuff like that before you decide they are a "good citizen".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30095714</id>
	<title>Half full is half empty</title>
	<author>rakslice</author>
	<datestamp>1258231500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I see a lot of kudos going to Microsoft for releasing the source.</p><p>That's pretty big of you, oh great Slashdot community, since they've basically done what any presumably expensive legal team would tell them, no?</p><p>But perhaps you haven't yet realized that the story of this incident will be long remembered... as it will be rehashed in 40 foot tall flaming allcaps in every MS FUD piece from now until eternity.</p><p>This is exactly the kind of 'submarine' GPL code incident that MS has been warning would come of GPL-like 'viral' license (those that require derivative works be made available under similar terms) ever since the time of the Halloween memos when they started to see Linux as a threat. I won't go so far as to suggest that MS manipulated their way into this situation (I see some ideas about the mechanics of that above) but in any case</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I see a lot of kudos going to Microsoft for releasing the source.That 's pretty big of you , oh great Slashdot community , since they 've basically done what any presumably expensive legal team would tell them , no ? But perhaps you have n't yet realized that the story of this incident will be long remembered... as it will be rehashed in 40 foot tall flaming allcaps in every MS FUD piece from now until eternity.This is exactly the kind of 'submarine ' GPL code incident that MS has been warning would come of GPL-like 'viral ' license ( those that require derivative works be made available under similar terms ) ever since the time of the Halloween memos when they started to see Linux as a threat .
I wo n't go so far as to suggest that MS manipulated their way into this situation ( I see some ideas about the mechanics of that above ) but in any case</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see a lot of kudos going to Microsoft for releasing the source.That's pretty big of you, oh great Slashdot community, since they've basically done what any presumably expensive legal team would tell them, no?But perhaps you haven't yet realized that the story of this incident will be long remembered... as it will be rehashed in 40 foot tall flaming allcaps in every MS FUD piece from now until eternity.This is exactly the kind of 'submarine' GPL code incident that MS has been warning would come of GPL-like 'viral' license (those that require derivative works be made available under similar terms) ever since the time of the Halloween memos when they started to see Linux as a threat.
I won't go so far as to suggest that MS manipulated their way into this situation (I see some ideas about the mechanics of that above) but in any case</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30094164</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, so it's ok then</title>
	<author>vadim\_t</author>
	<datestamp>1258122960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>What if it WAS a mistake? What if Microsoft didn't check the code/programmer claimed it wasn't GPL/whatever?</p></div></blockquote><p>Well, they should have. It's a generally very bad idea to release software containing somebody else's code without permission.</p><p>Try to pull that off with MS code and see how well that goes.</p><blockquote><div><p>Because if it was a mistake, they appeared to have been doing the right thing. Furthermore, they weren't even selling this, nor was anyone else. If anything, it was a violation of GPL not copyright stuff.</p></div></blockquote><p>No, it's very much copyright stuff. GPL infringement is copyright infringement, since the GPL is what gives you the right to distribute the software. Remove the GPL by claiming it doesn't apply or infriging on it, and what you have left is plain copyright.</p><p>This was MS' own choice. They could have reached a different solution with the copyright holder. They could have went to court and ended up paying damages, or the copyright holder could have agreed to license it under different terms for money, or lifetime free MS software or whatever. The copyright holder and MS can reach pretty much any agreement, it doesn't necessarily have to involve releasing the source.</p><p>Though releasing the source does fix things for sure with no need to negotiate.</p><blockquote><div><p>I had no idea GPL people were so like the RIAA that they would want to "crucify" a company for possibly accidentally using (stealing? slashdot will call using GPL code against GPL license [and giving the result away for free]"stealing" but slashdot won't call downloading songs/movies stealing?) open source code without releasing the resulting open source. Sounds<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... very progressive. Encourages people to use GPL. "Hey, use our free software and code! It's great! Use it however you want! But if you don't follow the GPL you are a horrible, horrible company, even worse than people that illegally download copyrighted materials."</p></div></blockquote><p>GPL != BSD. The GPL very much relies on copyright, and GPL licensed code is just as copyrighted as the Windows one.</p><p>People releasing code under the GPL generally do expect it to be respected, and would prefer other not to use it to infringing on it. Just like most companies would rather you not use their software at all than pirate it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What if it WAS a mistake ?
What if Microsoft did n't check the code/programmer claimed it was n't GPL/whatever ? Well , they should have .
It 's a generally very bad idea to release software containing somebody else 's code without permission.Try to pull that off with MS code and see how well that goes.Because if it was a mistake , they appeared to have been doing the right thing .
Furthermore , they were n't even selling this , nor was anyone else .
If anything , it was a violation of GPL not copyright stuff.No , it 's very much copyright stuff .
GPL infringement is copyright infringement , since the GPL is what gives you the right to distribute the software .
Remove the GPL by claiming it does n't apply or infriging on it , and what you have left is plain copyright.This was MS ' own choice .
They could have reached a different solution with the copyright holder .
They could have went to court and ended up paying damages , or the copyright holder could have agreed to license it under different terms for money , or lifetime free MS software or whatever .
The copyright holder and MS can reach pretty much any agreement , it does n't necessarily have to involve releasing the source.Though releasing the source does fix things for sure with no need to negotiate.I had no idea GPL people were so like the RIAA that they would want to " crucify " a company for possibly accidentally using ( stealing ?
slashdot will call using GPL code against GPL license [ and giving the result away for free ] " stealing " but slashdot wo n't call downloading songs/movies stealing ?
) open source code without releasing the resulting open source .
Sounds ... very progressive .
Encourages people to use GPL .
" Hey , use our free software and code !
It 's great !
Use it however you want !
But if you do n't follow the GPL you are a horrible , horrible company , even worse than people that illegally download copyrighted materials .
" GPL ! = BSD .
The GPL very much relies on copyright , and GPL licensed code is just as copyrighted as the Windows one.People releasing code under the GPL generally do expect it to be respected , and would prefer other not to use it to infringing on it .
Just like most companies would rather you not use their software at all than pirate it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What if it WAS a mistake?
What if Microsoft didn't check the code/programmer claimed it wasn't GPL/whatever?Well, they should have.
It's a generally very bad idea to release software containing somebody else's code without permission.Try to pull that off with MS code and see how well that goes.Because if it was a mistake, they appeared to have been doing the right thing.
Furthermore, they weren't even selling this, nor was anyone else.
If anything, it was a violation of GPL not copyright stuff.No, it's very much copyright stuff.
GPL infringement is copyright infringement, since the GPL is what gives you the right to distribute the software.
Remove the GPL by claiming it doesn't apply or infriging on it, and what you have left is plain copyright.This was MS' own choice.
They could have reached a different solution with the copyright holder.
They could have went to court and ended up paying damages, or the copyright holder could have agreed to license it under different terms for money, or lifetime free MS software or whatever.
The copyright holder and MS can reach pretty much any agreement, it doesn't necessarily have to involve releasing the source.Though releasing the source does fix things for sure with no need to negotiate.I had no idea GPL people were so like the RIAA that they would want to "crucify" a company for possibly accidentally using (stealing?
slashdot will call using GPL code against GPL license [and giving the result away for free]"stealing" but slashdot won't call downloading songs/movies stealing?
) open source code without releasing the resulting open source.
Sounds ... very progressive.
Encourages people to use GPL.
"Hey, use our free software and code!
It's great!
Use it however you want!
But if you don't follow the GPL you are a horrible, horrible company, even worse than people that illegally download copyrighted materials.
"GPL != BSD.
The GPL very much relies on copyright, and GPL licensed code is just as copyrighted as the Windows one.People releasing code under the GPL generally do expect it to be respected, and would prefer other not to use it to infringing on it.
Just like most companies would rather you not use their software at all than pirate it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093908</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093814</id>
	<title>Re:a big round of thanks to that outside contracto</title>
	<author>Interoperable</author>
	<datestamp>1258120140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Depending on how much of their business depended on contracts from Microsoft, they may not have an HQ anymore.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Depending on how much of their business depended on contracts from Microsoft , they may not have an HQ anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Depending on how much of their business depended on contracts from Microsoft, they may not have an HQ anymore.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30094168</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, so it's ok then</title>
	<author>Daimanta</author>
	<datestamp>1258123020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"I had no idea GPL people were so like the RIAA that they would want to "crucify" a company for possibly accidentally using (stealing? slashdot will call using GPL code against GPL license [and giving the result away for free]"stealing" but slashdot won't call downloading songs/movies stealing?) open source code without releasing the resulting open source. Sounds<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... very progressive. "</p><p>We are talking about Microsoft here. 'Nuff said.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I had no idea GPL people were so like the RIAA that they would want to " crucify " a company for possibly accidentally using ( stealing ?
slashdot will call using GPL code against GPL license [ and giving the result away for free ] " stealing " but slashdot wo n't call downloading songs/movies stealing ?
) open source code without releasing the resulting open source .
Sounds ... very progressive .
" We are talking about Microsoft here .
'Nuff said .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I had no idea GPL people were so like the RIAA that they would want to "crucify" a company for possibly accidentally using (stealing?
slashdot will call using GPL code against GPL license [and giving the result away for free]"stealing" but slashdot won't call downloading songs/movies stealing?
) open source code without releasing the resulting open source.
Sounds ... very progressive.
"We are talking about Microsoft here.
'Nuff said.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093908</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30126604</id>
	<title>Re:Good on MS</title>
	<author>ploxiln</author>
	<datestamp>1258489020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1) Why did / does Microsoft outsource their core competency, desktop and server software development, to contractors?</p><p>2) Why didn't Microsoft develop this in house and save time in this case by using the open source software that was used to accelerate the development of this tool, and then release the source along with it? The core functionality was already open source, and their additional work mostly only increases the value of their closed-source cash-cow Windows, anyway. It sounds like they actually haven't figured out this open-source thing yet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) Why did / does Microsoft outsource their core competency , desktop and server software development , to contractors ? 2 ) Why did n't Microsoft develop this in house and save time in this case by using the open source software that was used to accelerate the development of this tool , and then release the source along with it ?
The core functionality was already open source , and their additional work mostly only increases the value of their closed-source cash-cow Windows , anyway .
It sounds like they actually have n't figured out this open-source thing yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) Why did / does Microsoft outsource their core competency, desktop and server software development, to contractors?2) Why didn't Microsoft develop this in house and save time in this case by using the open source software that was used to accelerate the development of this tool, and then release the source along with it?
The core functionality was already open source, and their additional work mostly only increases the value of their closed-source cash-cow Windows, anyway.
It sounds like they actually haven't figured out this open-source thing yet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30094246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30113680</id>
	<title>Where there is smoke there is fire.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258373160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I worked for an auditor years ago, it was customary if you found one inconsistency, there were usually more because of rubber stamping of like kind transactions. A deeper inspection was made of similar records to see if a red flag was warranted. I really think this should be done to Microsoft. A real savvy lawyer could attempt to force MS to open up their code. Would not that be interesting? Though a special master would have to be engaged to do it. If MS did not open up their code, it could become a hotbed issue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I worked for an auditor years ago , it was customary if you found one inconsistency , there were usually more because of rubber stamping of like kind transactions .
A deeper inspection was made of similar records to see if a red flag was warranted .
I really think this should be done to Microsoft .
A real savvy lawyer could attempt to force MS to open up their code .
Would not that be interesting ?
Though a special master would have to be engaged to do it .
If MS did not open up their code , it could become a hotbed issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I worked for an auditor years ago, it was customary if you found one inconsistency, there were usually more because of rubber stamping of like kind transactions.
A deeper inspection was made of similar records to see if a red flag was warranted.
I really think this should be done to Microsoft.
A real savvy lawyer could attempt to force MS to open up their code.
Would not that be interesting?
Though a special master would have to be engaged to do it.
If MS did not open up their code, it could become a hotbed issue.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30094676</id>
	<title>Re:Give some credit</title>
	<author>jonwil</author>
	<datestamp>1258128900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its unlikely that Microsoft would replace this tool given what it does. If it was code shipped as part of an actual product (say code shipped with Windows or Office or Visual Studio) they would replace it with something else. But in this case its trivial to have a link to the GPL and a link to the source on the same page as the download link for the binary.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its unlikely that Microsoft would replace this tool given what it does .
If it was code shipped as part of an actual product ( say code shipped with Windows or Office or Visual Studio ) they would replace it with something else .
But in this case its trivial to have a link to the GPL and a link to the source on the same page as the download link for the binary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its unlikely that Microsoft would replace this tool given what it does.
If it was code shipped as part of an actual product (say code shipped with Windows or Office or Visual Studio) they would replace it with something else.
But in this case its trivial to have a link to the GPL and a link to the source on the same page as the download link for the binary.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093532</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093510</id>
	<title>So wheres the source?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258117800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A promise to provide isnt enough is it? wheres can we get the source? whos writing to MS<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A promise to provide isnt enough is it ?
wheres can we get the source ?
whos writing to MS .... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A promise to provide isnt enough is it?
wheres can we get the source?
whos writing to MS .....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093942</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, so it's ok then</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258121160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>What remedy does the GPL call for?  As I understand it, it is to either release source or stop distributing.  MS handled this error correctly.  Calling for stronger sanctions would just drive more people away from GPL'd software.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What remedy does the GPL call for ?
As I understand it , it is to either release source or stop distributing .
MS handled this error correctly .
Calling for stronger sanctions would just drive more people away from GPL 'd software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What remedy does the GPL call for?
As I understand it, it is to either release source or stop distributing.
MS handled this error correctly.
Calling for stronger sanctions would just drive more people away from GPL'd software.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30094042</id>
	<title>Re:Death of one old bag of baloney?</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1258121760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And if the program in question happened to be MS Word?  Then they'd have had a big problem.  Of course, they probably don't let outside companies contribute code to Word, but this still works as good PR from Microsoft's point of view.  They had to release the code for a fairly unimportant tool that they got a third party to write and they got to point to this as an example of the GPL forcing a big company to release their code. ('if even Microsoft is <i>forced</i> to release their code by the GPL then we'd better make sure we avoid it!')</htmltext>
<tokenext>And if the program in question happened to be MS Word ?
Then they 'd have had a big problem .
Of course , they probably do n't let outside companies contribute code to Word , but this still works as good PR from Microsoft 's point of view .
They had to release the code for a fairly unimportant tool that they got a third party to write and they got to point to this as an example of the GPL forcing a big company to release their code .
( 'if even Microsoft is forced to release their code by the GPL then we 'd better make sure we avoid it !
' )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And if the program in question happened to be MS Word?
Then they'd have had a big problem.
Of course, they probably don't let outside companies contribute code to Word, but this still works as good PR from Microsoft's point of view.
They had to release the code for a fairly unimportant tool that they got a third party to write and they got to point to this as an example of the GPL forcing a big company to release their code.
('if even Microsoft is forced to release their code by the GPL then we'd better make sure we avoid it!
')</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093594</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093472</id>
	<title>Code Review</title>
	<author>Romancer</author>
	<datestamp>1258117560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IDEA:<br>When you're that big a company you should review all of your code as much as you think the patent office should review others patents.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IDEA : When you 're that big a company you should review all of your code as much as you think the patent office should review others patents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IDEA:When you're that big a company you should review all of your code as much as you think the patent office should review others patents.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30095076</id>
	<title>Re:Code Review</title>
	<author>PitaBred</author>
	<datestamp>1258134120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You'd think they'd be able to check out some tools that do a similar thing to what they're attempting to do and compare the code. Not a huge leap of logic there, or much time wasted. I'm not saying that MS did anything wrong, and they're handling it admirably, but it's not a completely insurmountable problem as you propose.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 'd think they 'd be able to check out some tools that do a similar thing to what they 're attempting to do and compare the code .
Not a huge leap of logic there , or much time wasted .
I 'm not saying that MS did anything wrong , and they 're handling it admirably , but it 's not a completely insurmountable problem as you propose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You'd think they'd be able to check out some tools that do a similar thing to what they're attempting to do and compare the code.
Not a huge leap of logic there, or much time wasted.
I'm not saying that MS did anything wrong, and they're handling it admirably, but it's not a completely insurmountable problem as you propose.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30094046</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, so it's ok then</title>
	<author>Shados</author>
	<datestamp>1258121760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except the whole point of the GPL is to make source open, not to bring in cash. Usually, people in favor of the GPL prefer having the source code and settle on that than settling on money. As someone mentionned already, if you start sueing people who use the GPL by accident, and ask for money instead of source code, you'll just prove that people who called the GPL a "virus" were right.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except the whole point of the GPL is to make source open , not to bring in cash .
Usually , people in favor of the GPL prefer having the source code and settle on that than settling on money .
As someone mentionned already , if you start sueing people who use the GPL by accident , and ask for money instead of source code , you 'll just prove that people who called the GPL a " virus " were right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except the whole point of the GPL is to make source open, not to bring in cash.
Usually, people in favor of the GPL prefer having the source code and settle on that than settling on money.
As someone mentionned already, if you start sueing people who use the GPL by accident, and ask for money instead of source code, you'll just prove that people who called the GPL a "virus" were right.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30094212</id>
	<title>Re:Code Review</title>
	<author>bitt3n</author>
	<datestamp>1258123380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>IDEA:
When you're that big a company you should review all of your code as much as you think the patent office should review others patents.</p></div><p>so I should just stamp 'REJECTED' on the first page and call it a day?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>IDEA : When you 're that big a company you should review all of your code as much as you think the patent office should review others patents.so I should just stamp 'REJECTED ' on the first page and call it a day ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IDEA:
When you're that big a company you should review all of your code as much as you think the patent office should review others patents.so I should just stamp 'REJECTED' on the first page and call it a day?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093472</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093558</id>
	<title>Not bad.</title>
	<author>Christopher\_Wood</author>
	<datestamp>1258118040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While it's post-hoc, it looks like quiet, no-fuss GPL compliance.</p><p>I'm good with it as long as they don't keep it up with the post-hoc part.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While it 's post-hoc , it looks like quiet , no-fuss GPL compliance.I 'm good with it as long as they do n't keep it up with the post-hoc part .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While it's post-hoc, it looks like quiet, no-fuss GPL compliance.I'm good with it as long as they don't keep it up with the post-hoc part.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30103736</id>
	<title>Third Party Contractor Overpaid?</title>
	<author>Vastad</author>
	<datestamp>1258219680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hmm, if the third-party contractor basically plundered GPL code to fulfill a juicy contract with Microsoft, didn't they just bill for work they didn't do?</p><p>I mean, if putting together this USB/DVD tool consisted of laying down a foundation other programmers had already worked through, and just adding some custom bits here and there, then Microsoft might as well have done it in-house. 5 programmers, a project leader, 20\% of their work week for 3 months. Ta-daa! Same result <i>without</i> paying inflated 'consultant' prices.</p><p>Anybody think this could be won in a small claims court?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmm , if the third-party contractor basically plundered GPL code to fulfill a juicy contract with Microsoft , did n't they just bill for work they did n't do ? I mean , if putting together this USB/DVD tool consisted of laying down a foundation other programmers had already worked through , and just adding some custom bits here and there , then Microsoft might as well have done it in-house .
5 programmers , a project leader , 20 \ % of their work week for 3 months .
Ta-daa ! Same result without paying inflated 'consultant ' prices.Anybody think this could be won in a small claims court ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmm, if the third-party contractor basically plundered GPL code to fulfill a juicy contract with Microsoft, didn't they just bill for work they didn't do?I mean, if putting together this USB/DVD tool consisted of laying down a foundation other programmers had already worked through, and just adding some custom bits here and there, then Microsoft might as well have done it in-house.
5 programmers, a project leader, 20\% of their work week for 3 months.
Ta-daa! Same result without paying inflated 'consultant' prices.Anybody think this could be won in a small claims court?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093594</id>
	<title>Death of one old bag of baloney?</title>
	<author>rewt66</author>
	<datestamp>1258118220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>If I recall correctly, MS at one point tried to say that, if something like this happened, you'd have to release all your source code.  Now we find that MS knows that you only have to release the source code <i>of the program in question.</i>  Big difference.  (Of course, if this was in Windows itself, the difference would not matter much to MS...)</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I recall correctly , MS at one point tried to say that , if something like this happened , you 'd have to release all your source code .
Now we find that MS knows that you only have to release the source code of the program in question .
Big difference .
( Of course , if this was in Windows itself , the difference would not matter much to MS... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I recall correctly, MS at one point tried to say that, if something like this happened, you'd have to release all your source code.
Now we find that MS knows that you only have to release the source code of the program in question.
Big difference.
(Of course, if this was in Windows itself, the difference would not matter much to MS...)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30096052</id>
	<title>No, this bad. Very bad.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258194780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All I see is people saying, "Crikey, I thought I never see the day! Well done Microsoft for doing The Right Thing".</p><p>However, I immediately saw this in a very different light.</p><p>GPL violation is simply an issue of copyright violation. The moment you don't distribute the source code for your derived work, all rights granted to you under the GPL evaporate and your situation degenerates into the much simpler case of "We violated someone's copyright".</p><p>In such cases, the remedy is usually some financial restitution, as agreed between the violator and the copyright holder, or sometimes decided by a civil judgement.</p><p>However, Microsoft has willingly decided to open up the code. In this case, the value of the code is negligible: it's a minor utility. But this gives them excellent ammunition in their "GPL is a cancer" FUD battle.</p><p>Expect in future versions of "Get The Facts" to contain phrases like, "In 2009 Microsoft accidentally shipped a utility containing code under the GPL. The utility had cost $270,000 to develop, but the end result of this was that the source code to the utility was released because of this single mistake"</p><p>Microsoft never, ever does The Right Thing because it feels nice. It occasionally does the right thing because it happens to coincide with Microsoft's best interests. In this case, avoiding further bad publicity and getting a big wad of future FUD was better than the alternative.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All I see is people saying , " Crikey , I thought I never see the day !
Well done Microsoft for doing The Right Thing " .However , I immediately saw this in a very different light.GPL violation is simply an issue of copyright violation .
The moment you do n't distribute the source code for your derived work , all rights granted to you under the GPL evaporate and your situation degenerates into the much simpler case of " We violated someone 's copyright " .In such cases , the remedy is usually some financial restitution , as agreed between the violator and the copyright holder , or sometimes decided by a civil judgement.However , Microsoft has willingly decided to open up the code .
In this case , the value of the code is negligible : it 's a minor utility .
But this gives them excellent ammunition in their " GPL is a cancer " FUD battle.Expect in future versions of " Get The Facts " to contain phrases like , " In 2009 Microsoft accidentally shipped a utility containing code under the GPL .
The utility had cost $ 270,000 to develop , but the end result of this was that the source code to the utility was released because of this single mistake " Microsoft never , ever does The Right Thing because it feels nice .
It occasionally does the right thing because it happens to coincide with Microsoft 's best interests .
In this case , avoiding further bad publicity and getting a big wad of future FUD was better than the alternative .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All I see is people saying, "Crikey, I thought I never see the day!
Well done Microsoft for doing The Right Thing".However, I immediately saw this in a very different light.GPL violation is simply an issue of copyright violation.
The moment you don't distribute the source code for your derived work, all rights granted to you under the GPL evaporate and your situation degenerates into the much simpler case of "We violated someone's copyright".In such cases, the remedy is usually some financial restitution, as agreed between the violator and the copyright holder, or sometimes decided by a civil judgement.However, Microsoft has willingly decided to open up the code.
In this case, the value of the code is negligible: it's a minor utility.
But this gives them excellent ammunition in their "GPL is a cancer" FUD battle.Expect in future versions of "Get The Facts" to contain phrases like, "In 2009 Microsoft accidentally shipped a utility containing code under the GPL.
The utility had cost $270,000 to develop, but the end result of this was that the source code to the utility was released because of this single mistake"Microsoft never, ever does The Right Thing because it feels nice.
It occasionally does the right thing because it happens to coincide with Microsoft's best interests.
In this case, avoiding further bad publicity and getting a big wad of future FUD was better than the alternative.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30096396</id>
	<title>I don't buy it</title>
	<author>Ilgaz</author>
	<datestamp>1258201620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It takes 10 secs to explain a user what GPL is and even with that 10 sec knowledge, he can understand the real idea behind it to call it "absolutely utopic".</p><p>I am speaking about a "user" without no kind of developer background and does nothing technical except running Apple software update.</p><p>I don't buy a company which has reached to a level of doing business with MS for MS OS distribution doesn't know the implications of using GPL software. At least they could go for BSD licensed software which has a perfect example in commercial OS land, OS X.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It takes 10 secs to explain a user what GPL is and even with that 10 sec knowledge , he can understand the real idea behind it to call it " absolutely utopic " .I am speaking about a " user " without no kind of developer background and does nothing technical except running Apple software update.I do n't buy a company which has reached to a level of doing business with MS for MS OS distribution does n't know the implications of using GPL software .
At least they could go for BSD licensed software which has a perfect example in commercial OS land , OS X .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It takes 10 secs to explain a user what GPL is and even with that 10 sec knowledge, he can understand the real idea behind it to call it "absolutely utopic".I am speaking about a "user" without no kind of developer background and does nothing technical except running Apple software update.I don't buy a company which has reached to a level of doing business with MS for MS OS distribution doesn't know the implications of using GPL software.
At least they could go for BSD licensed software which has a perfect example in commercial OS land, OS X.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093582</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093534</id>
	<title>I was right for once</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1258117920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I predicted that they'd just need to make <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1435180&amp;cid=30014998" title="slashdot.org">minor corrective action</a> [slashdot.org]. Looks to me like that's exactly what happened. A replier to that post noted that as a prominent member of the Business Software Alliance, Microsoft would need to act above board and that this, if true, could be a serious problem. My take is that they just did that with this choice a mere week or so after the GPL code came to light.<br> <br>

So it appears to me that we're both right. Microsoft didn't need to fix much, but due to their leading position in an anti-piracy lobbying group, they needed to fix it quickly.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I predicted that they 'd just need to make minor corrective action [ slashdot.org ] .
Looks to me like that 's exactly what happened .
A replier to that post noted that as a prominent member of the Business Software Alliance , Microsoft would need to act above board and that this , if true , could be a serious problem .
My take is that they just did that with this choice a mere week or so after the GPL code came to light .
So it appears to me that we 're both right .
Microsoft did n't need to fix much , but due to their leading position in an anti-piracy lobbying group , they needed to fix it quickly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I predicted that they'd just need to make minor corrective action [slashdot.org].
Looks to me like that's exactly what happened.
A replier to that post noted that as a prominent member of the Business Software Alliance, Microsoft would need to act above board and that this, if true, could be a serious problem.
My take is that they just did that with this choice a mere week or so after the GPL code came to light.
So it appears to me that we're both right.
Microsoft didn't need to fix much, but due to their leading position in an anti-piracy lobbying group, they needed to fix it quickly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30098936</id>
	<title>The GPL requires itself to be advertised</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1258223880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Question: how can you tell GPL code is GPL code unless you know that it's GPL code?</p></div><p>Version 2 requires that GPL-covered code states clearly that it's covered by the GPL.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>[Section 1] You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program.</p></div><p>Section 2, which covers modifying and then distributing, says "do Section 1 in this case too".</p><p>See <a href="http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html" title="gnu.org">http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html</a> [gnu.org] for the full text.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Question : how can you tell GPL code is GPL code unless you know that it 's GPL code ? Version 2 requires that GPL-covered code states clearly that it 's covered by the GPL .
[ Section 1 ] You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program 's source code as you receive it , in any medium , provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty ; keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty ; and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program.Section 2 , which covers modifying and then distributing , says " do Section 1 in this case too " .See http : //www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html [ gnu.org ] for the full text .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Question: how can you tell GPL code is GPL code unless you know that it's GPL code?Version 2 requires that GPL-covered code states clearly that it's covered by the GPL.
[Section 1] You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program.Section 2, which covers modifying and then distributing, says "do Section 1 in this case too".See http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html [gnu.org] for the full text.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30101234</id>
	<title>Watch out, it's a trap!</title>
	<author>marciot</author>
	<datestamp>1258196760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whoohoo! A win for open-source! Linux geeks everywhere can now recompile the source code for this tool on their favorite Linux distro, run it... and install Windows 7?</p><p>Sounds like a Pyrrhic victory to me...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whoohoo !
A win for open-source !
Linux geeks everywhere can now recompile the source code for this tool on their favorite Linux distro , run it... and install Windows 7 ? Sounds like a Pyrrhic victory to me.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whoohoo!
A win for open-source!
Linux geeks everywhere can now recompile the source code for this tool on their favorite Linux distro, run it... and install Windows 7?Sounds like a Pyrrhic victory to me...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30096960</id>
	<title>Re:Good on MS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258209600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"If you worked at Microsoft, you'd know that it takes patience and time away from the horrific workload and schedules to code review every third-party thing that came through the door"</p><p>I never worked at ms, but I know this. Here's the difference.</p><p>After MS does what everyone else does (incrementally build on the colossal body of software code &amp; knowledge that has built up over the decades) they fire up a marketing blitz meant to suggest that they invented everything under the sun and all the other OSen are trying to play catch-up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" If you worked at Microsoft , you 'd know that it takes patience and time away from the horrific workload and schedules to code review every third-party thing that came through the door " I never worked at ms , but I know this .
Here 's the difference.After MS does what everyone else does ( incrementally build on the colossal body of software code &amp; knowledge that has built up over the decades ) they fire up a marketing blitz meant to suggest that they invented everything under the sun and all the other OSen are trying to play catch-up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"If you worked at Microsoft, you'd know that it takes patience and time away from the horrific workload and schedules to code review every third-party thing that came through the door"I never worked at ms, but I know this.
Here's the difference.After MS does what everyone else does (incrementally build on the colossal body of software code &amp; knowledge that has built up over the decades) they fire up a marketing blitz meant to suggest that they invented everything under the sun and all the other OSen are trying to play catch-up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30094246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30096236</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, so it's ok then</title>
	<author>Dr\_Barnowl</author>
	<datestamp>1258198740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would be surprised if the set of people who really understand GPL and it's benefits has a significant intersect with the set of people who think it's just OK to copy anything anyhow.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>But if you don't follow the GPL you are a horrible, horrible company, even worse than people that illegally download copyrighted materials.</p></div><p>Well, you are. Good code represents a much larger investment of time than music. By definition, you can only violate the GPL by <b>distributing</b> software without it's sources. I've got no problem with companies taking GPL code, making a derivative work, and using it in-house. Nothing compels them to release their changes back to the originating project, so they are not reciprocating, but the license allows this, and it's their right. Companies typically only start <b>distributing</b> software when they receive reciprocation from their customers in the form of money. At this point they are not just free-riding (which is what most "media pirates" are doing), they are actively engaged in profiting from the work of others, without living up to their side of the bargain. It's more like the guy who downloads DVD ISOs and sells burned copies in the local market, than the teenager who downloads tracks to fill his iPod.</p><p>Note that this is entirely permissible if they just offer to provide the sources under GPL - it doesn't prevent you charging whatever the hell you like, it <i>only</i> addresses availability of the sources.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would be surprised if the set of people who really understand GPL and it 's benefits has a significant intersect with the set of people who think it 's just OK to copy anything anyhow.But if you do n't follow the GPL you are a horrible , horrible company , even worse than people that illegally download copyrighted materials.Well , you are .
Good code represents a much larger investment of time than music .
By definition , you can only violate the GPL by distributing software without it 's sources .
I 've got no problem with companies taking GPL code , making a derivative work , and using it in-house .
Nothing compels them to release their changes back to the originating project , so they are not reciprocating , but the license allows this , and it 's their right .
Companies typically only start distributing software when they receive reciprocation from their customers in the form of money .
At this point they are not just free-riding ( which is what most " media pirates " are doing ) , they are actively engaged in profiting from the work of others , without living up to their side of the bargain .
It 's more like the guy who downloads DVD ISOs and sells burned copies in the local market , than the teenager who downloads tracks to fill his iPod.Note that this is entirely permissible if they just offer to provide the sources under GPL - it does n't prevent you charging whatever the hell you like , it only addresses availability of the sources .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would be surprised if the set of people who really understand GPL and it's benefits has a significant intersect with the set of people who think it's just OK to copy anything anyhow.But if you don't follow the GPL you are a horrible, horrible company, even worse than people that illegally download copyrighted materials.Well, you are.
Good code represents a much larger investment of time than music.
By definition, you can only violate the GPL by distributing software without it's sources.
I've got no problem with companies taking GPL code, making a derivative work, and using it in-house.
Nothing compels them to release their changes back to the originating project, so they are not reciprocating, but the license allows this, and it's their right.
Companies typically only start distributing software when they receive reciprocation from their customers in the form of money.
At this point they are not just free-riding (which is what most "media pirates" are doing), they are actively engaged in profiting from the work of others, without living up to their side of the bargain.
It's more like the guy who downloads DVD ISOs and sells burned copies in the local market, than the teenager who downloads tracks to fill his iPod.Note that this is entirely permissible if they just offer to provide the sources under GPL - it doesn't prevent you charging whatever the hell you like, it only addresses availability of the sources.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093908</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093770</id>
	<title>Oh, so it's ok then</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258119600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I infringe on someone's copyright by "accidentally" downloading a song or movie, I can just delete it from my hard drive and apologize to the movie/music studio?</p><p>I like the double standard here. When is Microsoft going to be crucified by this?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I infringe on someone 's copyright by " accidentally " downloading a song or movie , I can just delete it from my hard drive and apologize to the movie/music studio ? I like the double standard here .
When is Microsoft going to be crucified by this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I infringe on someone's copyright by "accidentally" downloading a song or movie, I can just delete it from my hard drive and apologize to the movie/music studio?I like the double standard here.
When is Microsoft going to be crucified by this?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30094306</id>
	<title>Re:Implications</title>
	<author>Leebert</author>
	<datestamp>1258124640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I wouldn't want to be the consulting company that provided Microsoft with this code. They're in some deep doo-doo now.</p></div><p>Hah!  Who's going to go to Bangalore and find them?  I saw Slumdog Millionare, I know how those conniving kids can run...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would n't want to be the consulting company that provided Microsoft with this code .
They 're in some deep doo-doo now.Hah !
Who 's going to go to Bangalore and find them ?
I saw Slumdog Millionare , I know how those conniving kids can run.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wouldn't want to be the consulting company that provided Microsoft with this code.
They're in some deep doo-doo now.Hah!
Who's going to go to Bangalore and find them?
I saw Slumdog Millionare, I know how those conniving kids can run...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093582</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093832</id>
	<title>Re:Death of one old bag of baloney?</title>
	<author>Willbur</author>
	<datestamp>1258120260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If I recall correctly, MS at one point tried to say that, if something like this happened, you'd have to release all your source code.  Now we find that MS knows that you only have to release the source code <i>of the program in question.</i>  Big difference.</p></div><p>I don't believe that's correct.  You need to stop infringing the copyright - that means either obey the terms of the license or stop distributing (and deal with the consequences of the limited distribution you already made).</p><p>I hope this doesn't help the bogus 'GPL is dangerous, an outside contractor can make you reveal your code' meme to spread.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I recall correctly , MS at one point tried to say that , if something like this happened , you 'd have to release all your source code .
Now we find that MS knows that you only have to release the source code of the program in question .
Big difference.I do n't believe that 's correct .
You need to stop infringing the copyright - that means either obey the terms of the license or stop distributing ( and deal with the consequences of the limited distribution you already made ) .I hope this does n't help the bogus 'GPL is dangerous , an outside contractor can make you reveal your code ' meme to spread .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I recall correctly, MS at one point tried to say that, if something like this happened, you'd have to release all your source code.
Now we find that MS knows that you only have to release the source code of the program in question.
Big difference.I don't believe that's correct.
You need to stop infringing the copyright - that means either obey the terms of the license or stop distributing (and deal with the consequences of the limited distribution you already made).I hope this doesn't help the bogus 'GPL is dangerous, an outside contractor can make you reveal your code' meme to spread.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093594</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30097848</id>
	<title>Re:Code Review</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258217220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seeing all the blatantly obvious patents that get approved, this would probably mean that Microsoft should do <em>less</em> review.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seeing all the blatantly obvious patents that get approved , this would probably mean that Microsoft should do less review .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seeing all the blatantly obvious patents that get approved, this would probably mean that Microsoft should do less review.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093472</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093508</id>
	<title>How did they miss that?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258117800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>How did they miss that? I work for a relatively small software company, we've got around 100 coders. All new checkins are scanned nightly for code that resembles any open source code, msdn sample code, and code found in random online forums (experts-exchange, codeproject, etc...) Surely MS has something similar to prevent this kind of thing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How did they miss that ?
I work for a relatively small software company , we 've got around 100 coders .
All new checkins are scanned nightly for code that resembles any open source code , msdn sample code , and code found in random online forums ( experts-exchange , codeproject , etc... ) Surely MS has something similar to prevent this kind of thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How did they miss that?
I work for a relatively small software company, we've got around 100 coders.
All new checkins are scanned nightly for code that resembles any open source code, msdn sample code, and code found in random online forums (experts-exchange, codeproject, etc...) Surely MS has something similar to prevent this kind of thing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30095182</id>
	<title>Re:Code Review</title>
	<author>GregNorc</author>
	<datestamp>1258135860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Question: how can you tell GPL code is GPL code unless you know that it's GPL code? My point is that code reviews are cool, but they cannot catch things that the reviewers don't know to look for. And it's impossible for anyone to be familiar with every piece of GPL'd code out there, and it's impossible to build a database of such code. The best way to handle it was the way that they handled it. Someone found the error, told MS, and MS became compliant by releasing the code.</p></div><p>It's called <a href="http://theory.stanford.edu/~aiken/moss/" title="stanford.edu">MOSS</a> [stanford.edu]. Free for educational use, though a company like Microsoft would need a site license, but it would probably pay for itself when you factor in the money paid to PR firms to compensate for blunders like this.</p><p>I mean, I don't think anyone seriously thinks MS intended to steal GPL code. But if you have subcontractors writing shitty code, and you're forced to acknowledge this publicly, that have a very real cost - it undermimes your image as a respectable software company.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Question : how can you tell GPL code is GPL code unless you know that it 's GPL code ?
My point is that code reviews are cool , but they can not catch things that the reviewers do n't know to look for .
And it 's impossible for anyone to be familiar with every piece of GPL 'd code out there , and it 's impossible to build a database of such code .
The best way to handle it was the way that they handled it .
Someone found the error , told MS , and MS became compliant by releasing the code.It 's called MOSS [ stanford.edu ] .
Free for educational use , though a company like Microsoft would need a site license , but it would probably pay for itself when you factor in the money paid to PR firms to compensate for blunders like this.I mean , I do n't think anyone seriously thinks MS intended to steal GPL code .
But if you have subcontractors writing shitty code , and you 're forced to acknowledge this publicly , that have a very real cost - it undermimes your image as a respectable software company .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Question: how can you tell GPL code is GPL code unless you know that it's GPL code?
My point is that code reviews are cool, but they cannot catch things that the reviewers don't know to look for.
And it's impossible for anyone to be familiar with every piece of GPL'd code out there, and it's impossible to build a database of such code.
The best way to handle it was the way that they handled it.
Someone found the error, told MS, and MS became compliant by releasing the code.It's called MOSS [stanford.edu].
Free for educational use, though a company like Microsoft would need a site license, but it would probably pay for itself when you factor in the money paid to PR firms to compensate for blunders like this.I mean, I don't think anyone seriously thinks MS intended to steal GPL code.
But if you have subcontractors writing shitty code, and you're forced to acknowledge this publicly, that have a very real cost - it undermimes your image as a respectable software company.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30094950</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, so it's ok then</title>
	<author>im\_thatoneguy</author>
	<datestamp>1258132020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wait... when has Microsoft sued people for downloading music or a movie?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait... when has Microsoft sued people for downloading music or a movie ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait... when has Microsoft sued people for downloading music or a movie?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30094254</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, so it's ok then</title>
	<author>Virak</author>
	<datestamp>1258123920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I had no idea GPL people were so like the RIAA that they would want to "crucify" a company for possibly accidentally using (stealing? slashdot will call using GPL code against GPL license [and giving the result away for free]"stealing" but slashdot won't call downloading songs/movies stealing?) open source code without releasing the resulting open source. Sounds<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... very progressive. Encourages people to use GPL. "Hey, use our free software and code! It's great! Use it however you want! But if you don't follow the GPL you are a horrible, horrible company, even worse than people that illegally download copyrighted materials."</p></div></blockquote><p>I had no idea people whose Slashdot ID numbers ended in 5 engaged in gross logical fallacy by generalizing the actions of a single member of a group to the entirety of a group without the slightest reasonable basis for doing so. And yes, <i>breaking news, stop the presses</i>, people who use the GPL for their code have a problem with you taking it and incorporating it into yours and closing it up. If they didn't they'd be using the BSD license or something like that and not the GPL. <b>That is the whole point.</b> </p><blockquote><div><p>If anything, it was a violation of GPL not copyright stuff.</p></div></blockquote><blockquote><div><p>I don't like [...] comparisons of copyright to GPL...</p></div></blockquote><p>The GPL is a <i>copyright license</i>. It gets all of its force from <i>copyright law</i>. Gee, I wonder why people would be talking about copyright when it's a GPL violation?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I had no idea GPL people were so like the RIAA that they would want to " crucify " a company for possibly accidentally using ( stealing ?
slashdot will call using GPL code against GPL license [ and giving the result away for free ] " stealing " but slashdot wo n't call downloading songs/movies stealing ?
) open source code without releasing the resulting open source .
Sounds ... very progressive .
Encourages people to use GPL .
" Hey , use our free software and code !
It 's great !
Use it however you want !
But if you do n't follow the GPL you are a horrible , horrible company , even worse than people that illegally download copyrighted materials .
" I had no idea people whose Slashdot ID numbers ended in 5 engaged in gross logical fallacy by generalizing the actions of a single member of a group to the entirety of a group without the slightest reasonable basis for doing so .
And yes , breaking news , stop the presses , people who use the GPL for their code have a problem with you taking it and incorporating it into yours and closing it up .
If they did n't they 'd be using the BSD license or something like that and not the GPL .
That is the whole point .
If anything , it was a violation of GPL not copyright stuff.I do n't like [ ... ] comparisons of copyright to GPL...The GPL is a copyright license .
It gets all of its force from copyright law .
Gee , I wonder why people would be talking about copyright when it 's a GPL violation ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had no idea GPL people were so like the RIAA that they would want to "crucify" a company for possibly accidentally using (stealing?
slashdot will call using GPL code against GPL license [and giving the result away for free]"stealing" but slashdot won't call downloading songs/movies stealing?
) open source code without releasing the resulting open source.
Sounds ... very progressive.
Encourages people to use GPL.
"Hey, use our free software and code!
It's great!
Use it however you want!
But if you don't follow the GPL you are a horrible, horrible company, even worse than people that illegally download copyrighted materials.
"I had no idea people whose Slashdot ID numbers ended in 5 engaged in gross logical fallacy by generalizing the actions of a single member of a group to the entirety of a group without the slightest reasonable basis for doing so.
And yes, breaking news, stop the presses, people who use the GPL for their code have a problem with you taking it and incorporating it into yours and closing it up.
If they didn't they'd be using the BSD license or something like that and not the GPL.
That is the whole point.
If anything, it was a violation of GPL not copyright stuff.I don't like [...] comparisons of copyright to GPL...The GPL is a copyright license.
It gets all of its force from copyright law.
Gee, I wonder why people would be talking about copyright when it's a GPL violation?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093908</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30095766</id>
	<title>Re:Code Review</title>
	<author>the\_womble</author>
	<datestamp>1258189260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There ought to be an automated way of doing this: if you keep copies of everything from the likes of Sourceforge, Google code, etc. and the full source of all Debian packages and all FreeBSD source, you would have most of the open source code out there. You then need a tool that can identify similar code in spite of simple obfuscations (e.g. search and replace names).</p><p>It ought to be trivial of you have MS's resources and you already own a search engine (not quite the same problem: it ought to be simpler).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There ought to be an automated way of doing this : if you keep copies of everything from the likes of Sourceforge , Google code , etc .
and the full source of all Debian packages and all FreeBSD source , you would have most of the open source code out there .
You then need a tool that can identify similar code in spite of simple obfuscations ( e.g .
search and replace names ) .It ought to be trivial of you have MS 's resources and you already own a search engine ( not quite the same problem : it ought to be simpler ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There ought to be an automated way of doing this: if you keep copies of everything from the likes of Sourceforge, Google code, etc.
and the full source of all Debian packages and all FreeBSD source, you would have most of the open source code out there.
You then need a tool that can identify similar code in spite of simple obfuscations (e.g.
search and replace names).It ought to be trivial of you have MS's resources and you already own a search engine (not quite the same problem: it ought to be simpler).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30094526</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, so it's ok then</title>
	<author>TubeSteak</author>
	<datestamp>1258127040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> If anything, it was a <i>violation of GPL</i> not copyright stuff.<br>...<br>If they knowingly took GPL code, that's bad. I don't like "guilty until proven innocent" nor comparisons of copyright to GPL...</p></div><p>I'm not sure you know what you're talking about.<br>1. How do you <b>not</b> compare the GPL to copyright, when copyright law is the sole enforcement mechanism of the GPL?</p><p>2. There is no "innocent until proven guilty" with copyright. At best, there is "guilty unless you make a legally recognized affirmative defense."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If anything , it was a violation of GPL not copyright stuff....If they knowingly took GPL code , that 's bad .
I do n't like " guilty until proven innocent " nor comparisons of copyright to GPL...I 'm not sure you know what you 're talking about.1 .
How do you not compare the GPL to copyright , when copyright law is the sole enforcement mechanism of the GPL ? 2 .
There is no " innocent until proven guilty " with copyright .
At best , there is " guilty unless you make a legally recognized affirmative defense .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext> If anything, it was a violation of GPL not copyright stuff....If they knowingly took GPL code, that's bad.
I don't like "guilty until proven innocent" nor comparisons of copyright to GPL...I'm not sure you know what you're talking about.1.
How do you not compare the GPL to copyright, when copyright law is the sole enforcement mechanism of the GPL?2.
There is no "innocent until proven guilty" with copyright.
At best, there is "guilty unless you make a legally recognized affirmative defense.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093908</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30094220</id>
	<title>Hah!</title>
	<author>Trizicus</author>
	<datestamp>1258123440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I love being right!

Hate to say it... But told you so fanboiz!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I love being right !
Hate to say it... But told you so fanboiz !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love being right!
Hate to say it... But told you so fanboiz!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093484</id>
	<title>Weather Report</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258117680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lucifer is going to need a good pair of boots and a winter jacket today as the temperature in hell plummets to -3F. The City of Dis is particularly hard hit, with 8 inch snow fall forecasts for tomorrow.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lucifer is going to need a good pair of boots and a winter jacket today as the temperature in hell plummets to -3F .
The City of Dis is particularly hard hit , with 8 inch snow fall forecasts for tomorrow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lucifer is going to need a good pair of boots and a winter jacket today as the temperature in hell plummets to -3F.
The City of Dis is particularly hard hit, with 8 inch snow fall forecasts for tomorrow.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30094044</id>
	<title>GPL License Polution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258121760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course GPL does not represent the true philosophy of open source.  But that fact would not separate the true open source tools, libraries and API's from those tainted by GPL in the eyes of the blind, suited figures who are so easily influenced by the absurd arguments of MS lackeys. Clearly the BSD license is far superior to GPL because of the angry stench of the GPL philosophy where the thinking of Ayn Rand rights all wrongs.</p><p>Seriously, not to start a flame war.  Really no, really this is not any reason think that just because the BSD license is great and GPL is completely lame that there is any reason to have an exchange of messages that goes back and fourth thousands of times.  Back and fourth, back and fourth, without resolution.  Trust me.  No, wait.  Maybe it is.  Yes.  this is completely and totally flame bait.  =P</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course GPL does not represent the true philosophy of open source .
But that fact would not separate the true open source tools , libraries and API 's from those tainted by GPL in the eyes of the blind , suited figures who are so easily influenced by the absurd arguments of MS lackeys .
Clearly the BSD license is far superior to GPL because of the angry stench of the GPL philosophy where the thinking of Ayn Rand rights all wrongs.Seriously , not to start a flame war .
Really no , really this is not any reason think that just because the BSD license is great and GPL is completely lame that there is any reason to have an exchange of messages that goes back and fourth thousands of times .
Back and fourth , back and fourth , without resolution .
Trust me .
No , wait .
Maybe it is .
Yes. this is completely and totally flame bait .
= P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course GPL does not represent the true philosophy of open source.
But that fact would not separate the true open source tools, libraries and API's from those tainted by GPL in the eyes of the blind, suited figures who are so easily influenced by the absurd arguments of MS lackeys.
Clearly the BSD license is far superior to GPL because of the angry stench of the GPL philosophy where the thinking of Ayn Rand rights all wrongs.Seriously, not to start a flame war.
Really no, really this is not any reason think that just because the BSD license is great and GPL is completely lame that there is any reason to have an exchange of messages that goes back and fourth thousands of times.
Back and fourth, back and fourth, without resolution.
Trust me.
No, wait.
Maybe it is.
Yes.  this is completely and totally flame bait.
=P</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30096208</id>
	<title>Re:I was right for once</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258197840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dude they had four things they could do:<br>Do nothing and stop distributing the tool<br>Distribute the tool again and risk facing legal action<br>Replace the offending code and rerelease<br>Release the entire tool under GPL</p><p>So no.... You were not right... Out of four possible options you picked the wrong one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dude they had four things they could do : Do nothing and stop distributing the toolDistribute the tool again and risk facing legal actionReplace the offending code and rereleaseRelease the entire tool under GPLSo no.... You were not right... Out of four possible options you picked the wrong one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dude they had four things they could do:Do nothing and stop distributing the toolDistribute the tool again and risk facing legal actionReplace the offending code and rereleaseRelease the entire tool under GPLSo no.... You were not right... Out of four possible options you picked the wrong one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30094210</id>
	<title>When people say 'Microsoft did this'</title>
	<author>shadowofwind</author>
	<datestamp>1258123380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and 'Microsoft did that', I think some people forget how big the company is.  Yes, the top brass are ultimately and formally responsible for everything the company does, and they set the tone.  But its not like its possible for everything that any peon decides to do can get reviewed by a single central authority.  This applies, for example, to stupid patents.</p><p>The same principle applies to stupid things done by any national government.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and 'Microsoft did that ' , I think some people forget how big the company is .
Yes , the top brass are ultimately and formally responsible for everything the company does , and they set the tone .
But its not like its possible for everything that any peon decides to do can get reviewed by a single central authority .
This applies , for example , to stupid patents.The same principle applies to stupid things done by any national government .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and 'Microsoft did that', I think some people forget how big the company is.
Yes, the top brass are ultimately and formally responsible for everything the company does, and they set the tone.
But its not like its possible for everything that any peon decides to do can get reviewed by a single central authority.
This applies, for example, to stupid patents.The same principle applies to stupid things done by any national government.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30094160</id>
	<title>Contracted to a 3rd party .. Grrrrreaaaattt</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258122960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>so you expect us to install your operating system in computers in corporate environments, government offices, whereas you contracted stuff out to third parties.</p><p>just exemplary.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>so you expect us to install your operating system in computers in corporate environments , government offices , whereas you contracted stuff out to third parties.just exemplary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>so you expect us to install your operating system in computers in corporate environments, government offices, whereas you contracted stuff out to third parties.just exemplary.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093532</id>
	<title>Give some credit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258117920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Give some credit, they did a code review, noticed the accusation was factual and did the right thing. As many times as microsoft has done the wrong thing, it's only right to credit them for doing the right thing this time.</p><p>The interesting question now is if they will retain this tool going forward, or replace it with another that is not GPL'd. It certainly sounds like an accident, so I am curious if good production code has any chance of trumping internal politics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Give some credit , they did a code review , noticed the accusation was factual and did the right thing .
As many times as microsoft has done the wrong thing , it 's only right to credit them for doing the right thing this time.The interesting question now is if they will retain this tool going forward , or replace it with another that is not GPL 'd .
It certainly sounds like an accident , so I am curious if good production code has any chance of trumping internal politics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Give some credit, they did a code review, noticed the accusation was factual and did the right thing.
As many times as microsoft has done the wrong thing, it's only right to credit them for doing the right thing this time.The interesting question now is if they will retain this tool going forward, or replace it with another that is not GPL'd.
It certainly sounds like an accident, so I am curious if good production code has any chance of trumping internal politics.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093946</id>
	<title>New eye advice sought</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258121160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"have agreed to release the tool's source code under the terms of GPLv2."</p><p>Anyone know where I can buy some new eyes?  Mine just exploded.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" have agreed to release the tool 's source code under the terms of GPLv2 .
" Anyone know where I can buy some new eyes ?
Mine just exploded .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"have agreed to release the tool's source code under the terms of GPLv2.
"Anyone know where I can buy some new eyes?
Mine just exploded.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093854</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, so it's ok then</title>
	<author>wizardforce</author>
	<datestamp>1258120500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they didn't release the code then I'd say that a good old fashioned crucifixion would be in order but as it is, there's no real reason to hit them any more.  The code is free like it should have been and that's that.<br>In so far as a double standard, I think it would be far more sensible to advocate for sane copyright reform rather than resorting to the same tactics the RIAA and MPAA use.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they did n't release the code then I 'd say that a good old fashioned crucifixion would be in order but as it is , there 's no real reason to hit them any more .
The code is free like it should have been and that 's that.In so far as a double standard , I think it would be far more sensible to advocate for sane copyright reform rather than resorting to the same tactics the RIAA and MPAA use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they didn't release the code then I'd say that a good old fashioned crucifixion would be in order but as it is, there's no real reason to hit them any more.
The code is free like it should have been and that's that.In so far as a double standard, I think it would be far more sensible to advocate for sane copyright reform rather than resorting to the same tactics the RIAA and MPAA use.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30096288</id>
	<title>Re:Good on MS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258199460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It sounds like code reviews by committees, where they are *supposed* to study it before the review - but don't - and there is a nodding of heads. Hey MS is just like everyone else - flipping code as if t were a burger.</p><p>1) It is EASY to scan code for GPL - and MS can afford to stuff a server with GPL and run continuous scans to catch cheats</p><p>2) Performance review. No fire them all the way up the line.</p><p>3) Nothing wrong in using GPL - not invented here syndrome - is poor management.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It sounds like code reviews by committees , where they are * supposed * to study it before the review - but do n't - and there is a nodding of heads .
Hey MS is just like everyone else - flipping code as if t were a burger.1 ) It is EASY to scan code for GPL - and MS can afford to stuff a server with GPL and run continuous scans to catch cheats2 ) Performance review .
No fire them all the way up the line.3 ) Nothing wrong in using GPL - not invented here syndrome - is poor management .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It sounds like code reviews by committees, where they are *supposed* to study it before the review - but don't - and there is a nodding of heads.
Hey MS is just like everyone else - flipping code as if t were a burger.1) It is EASY to scan code for GPL - and MS can afford to stuff a server with GPL and run continuous scans to catch cheats2) Performance review.
No fire them all the way up the line.3) Nothing wrong in using GPL - not invented here syndrome - is poor management.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30094246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30094650</id>
	<title>The rational decision happened to be the right one</title>
	<author>straponego</author>
	<datestamp>1258128660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't think you can ask for more than this reaction.  They certainly reacted more ethically than many, many GPL violators (Hi Linksys/Cisco!).  So, good for them, and good for us.  The responsible individuals should be fired, tarred and feathered-- but I can't believe that this was in line with corporate policy.<br><br>But it was also very much in their best interests.  If they take on the GPL, what other licenses come into question?  Their entire business is based on the copyright status quo.   No need to rock that particular boat.  They've already experimented with taking on free software via their proxy SCO, and lost.  Doing so directly would entail high risk, small possibility of reward, terrible PR, alienating their customers, most of whom probably use GPL/Linux software as well as Microsofts-- and for what?  Some trivial piece of code they intended to distribute for free anyway?  Why on earth would they do that?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think you can ask for more than this reaction .
They certainly reacted more ethically than many , many GPL violators ( Hi Linksys/Cisco ! ) .
So , good for them , and good for us .
The responsible individuals should be fired , tarred and feathered-- but I ca n't believe that this was in line with corporate policy.But it was also very much in their best interests .
If they take on the GPL , what other licenses come into question ?
Their entire business is based on the copyright status quo .
No need to rock that particular boat .
They 've already experimented with taking on free software via their proxy SCO , and lost .
Doing so directly would entail high risk , small possibility of reward , terrible PR , alienating their customers , most of whom probably use GPL/Linux software as well as Microsofts-- and for what ?
Some trivial piece of code they intended to distribute for free anyway ?
Why on earth would they do that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think you can ask for more than this reaction.
They certainly reacted more ethically than many, many GPL violators (Hi Linksys/Cisco!).
So, good for them, and good for us.
The responsible individuals should be fired, tarred and feathered-- but I can't believe that this was in line with corporate policy.But it was also very much in their best interests.
If they take on the GPL, what other licenses come into question?
Their entire business is based on the copyright status quo.
No need to rock that particular boat.
They've already experimented with taking on free software via their proxy SCO, and lost.
Doing so directly would entail high risk, small possibility of reward, terrible PR, alienating their customers, most of whom probably use GPL/Linux software as well as Microsofts-- and for what?
Some trivial piece of code they intended to distribute for free anyway?
Why on earth would they do that?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30094790</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, so it's ok then</title>
	<author>Dunbal</author>
	<datestamp>1258130280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I had no idea GPL people were so like the RIAA that</i></p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; It's called playing the Devil's advocate. What's good for the goose should be good for the gander. The only thing stopping me from making millions of copies of Windows 7 is copyright law, and Microsoft's EULA which adds it's own little nuances to our "implicit" agreement.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; It's the same thing for the GPL. The code is COPYRIGHTED by the author. A copyright is not like a patent. You don't have to apply for it, and you don't have to defend it like a trademark. It's AUTOMATICALLY yours if you create something. Now if you license your work (through the GPL, or whatever), other parties MUST abide by the license. NOTHING in the GPL tries to nullify copyright law.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; So, if I infringe "Big Corporation X's" rights, I will have an army of lawyers on my ass. If "Big Corporation" violates the GPL, all they have to do is say "sorry"? If you can't see the double standard you are either blind, or a troll.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I had no idea GPL people were so like the RIAA that       It 's called playing the Devil 's advocate .
What 's good for the goose should be good for the gander .
The only thing stopping me from making millions of copies of Windows 7 is copyright law , and Microsoft 's EULA which adds it 's own little nuances to our " implicit " agreement .
      It 's the same thing for the GPL .
The code is COPYRIGHTED by the author .
A copyright is not like a patent .
You do n't have to apply for it , and you do n't have to defend it like a trademark .
It 's AUTOMATICALLY yours if you create something .
Now if you license your work ( through the GPL , or whatever ) , other parties MUST abide by the license .
NOTHING in the GPL tries to nullify copyright law .
      So , if I infringe " Big Corporation X 's " rights , I will have an army of lawyers on my ass .
If " Big Corporation " violates the GPL , all they have to do is say " sorry " ?
If you ca n't see the double standard you are either blind , or a troll .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had no idea GPL people were so like the RIAA that
      It's called playing the Devil's advocate.
What's good for the goose should be good for the gander.
The only thing stopping me from making millions of copies of Windows 7 is copyright law, and Microsoft's EULA which adds it's own little nuances to our "implicit" agreement.
      It's the same thing for the GPL.
The code is COPYRIGHTED by the author.
A copyright is not like a patent.
You don't have to apply for it, and you don't have to defend it like a trademark.
It's AUTOMATICALLY yours if you create something.
Now if you license your work (through the GPL, or whatever), other parties MUST abide by the license.
NOTHING in the GPL tries to nullify copyright law.
      So, if I infringe "Big Corporation X's" rights, I will have an army of lawyers on my ass.
If "Big Corporation" violates the GPL, all they have to do is say "sorry"?
If you can't see the double standard you are either blind, or a troll.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093908</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30118250</id>
	<title>If this was Apple</title>
	<author>Yaos</author>
	<datestamp>1258398300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They would sue the person that said they had GPL code and try to patent it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They would sue the person that said they had GPL code and try to patent it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They would sue the person that said they had GPL code and try to patent it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30095788</id>
	<title>Re:Give some credit</title>
	<author>pembo13</author>
	<datestamp>1258189560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They did the legal thing. If you want to give them credit for that fine. But I don't see what specifically makes it the right or wrong thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They did the legal thing .
If you want to give them credit for that fine .
But I do n't see what specifically makes it the right or wrong thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They did the legal thing.
If you want to give them credit for that fine.
But I don't see what specifically makes it the right or wrong thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093532</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30096328</id>
	<title>MS can't code a trivial application?</title>
	<author>Ilgaz</author>
	<datestamp>1258200540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>MS ships a modern OS, including kernel, massive frameworks, driver infrastructure to work on billions of different configurations and it is reviewed to be a good one.</p><p>How come some developer of them doesn't write that tool in matter of hours using the APIs already built into Windows? Who really runs Microsoft these days?</p><p>They could at least license a known, legit, stable tool and if you pay them Microsoft way, they won't even bother if their name is mentioned. For example, instead of trying to code their own "download" tool, Adobe licensed Getright framework. Instead of coming up with a "zip" compressor, they licensed a massive compressor which will save them bandwidth (amazing amount).</p><p>Now that little tool will cost them millions. You know why? People accusing them of stealing open source and even making movie about it (anti-trust) have another example in hand. Or, if I was some Redhat seller, I would say "MS? They can't even code their own software without stealing from us (open source camp)"</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>MS ships a modern OS , including kernel , massive frameworks , driver infrastructure to work on billions of different configurations and it is reviewed to be a good one.How come some developer of them does n't write that tool in matter of hours using the APIs already built into Windows ?
Who really runs Microsoft these days ? They could at least license a known , legit , stable tool and if you pay them Microsoft way , they wo n't even bother if their name is mentioned .
For example , instead of trying to code their own " download " tool , Adobe licensed Getright framework .
Instead of coming up with a " zip " compressor , they licensed a massive compressor which will save them bandwidth ( amazing amount ) .Now that little tool will cost them millions .
You know why ?
People accusing them of stealing open source and even making movie about it ( anti-trust ) have another example in hand .
Or , if I was some Redhat seller , I would say " MS ?
They ca n't even code their own software without stealing from us ( open source camp ) "  </tokentext>
<sentencetext>MS ships a modern OS, including kernel, massive frameworks, driver infrastructure to work on billions of different configurations and it is reviewed to be a good one.How come some developer of them doesn't write that tool in matter of hours using the APIs already built into Windows?
Who really runs Microsoft these days?They could at least license a known, legit, stable tool and if you pay them Microsoft way, they won't even bother if their name is mentioned.
For example, instead of trying to code their own "download" tool, Adobe licensed Getright framework.
Instead of coming up with a "zip" compressor, they licensed a massive compressor which will save them bandwidth (amazing amount).Now that little tool will cost them millions.
You know why?
People accusing them of stealing open source and even making movie about it (anti-trust) have another example in hand.
Or, if I was some Redhat seller, I would say "MS?
They can't even code their own software without stealing from us (open source camp)"
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30094510</id>
	<title>Re:Code Review</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258126920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>IDEA:<br>When you're that big a company you should review all of your code as much as you think the patent office should review others patents.</p></div><p>You should not do this with patents.  It would just get you treble damages for willful infringement.</p><p>The correct response is to do exactly what Microsoft already did.  If you happen to get caught then just release the code and a short apology and then laugh all the way to the bank...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>IDEA : When you 're that big a company you should review all of your code as much as you think the patent office should review others patents.You should not do this with patents .
It would just get you treble damages for willful infringement.The correct response is to do exactly what Microsoft already did .
If you happen to get caught then just release the code and a short apology and then laugh all the way to the bank.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IDEA:When you're that big a company you should review all of your code as much as you think the patent office should review others patents.You should not do this with patents.
It would just get you treble damages for willful infringement.The correct response is to do exactly what Microsoft already did.
If you happen to get caught then just release the code and a short apology and then laugh all the way to the bank...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093472</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30094780</id>
	<title>Re:Implications</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258130040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Unfortunately, a lot of engineers are so clueless about licensing, as are their managers, that it is really possible that the person who did this didn't know it was a problem.</p></div><p>In this case it's intuitive to be clueless. Code is simply information and it should be free.<br>Licensing is artificial and unintuitive.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately , a lot of engineers are so clueless about licensing , as are their managers , that it is really possible that the person who did this did n't know it was a problem.In this case it 's intuitive to be clueless .
Code is simply information and it should be free.Licensing is artificial and unintuitive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately, a lot of engineers are so clueless about licensing, as are their managers, that it is really possible that the person who did this didn't know it was a problem.In this case it's intuitive to be clueless.
Code is simply information and it should be free.Licensing is artificial and unintuitive.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093582</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093564</id>
	<title>Re:Good on MS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258118040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not so "Good on MS". Of course they apologized for not noticing the GPL code...after they got caught.</p><p>Funny how corporations always say things like "it was a mis-understanding" or "it was a third party" or "it was an honest error" right after they get exposed for stealing, lying, and cheating.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not so " Good on MS " .
Of course they apologized for not noticing the GPL code...after they got caught.Funny how corporations always say things like " it was a mis-understanding " or " it was a third party " or " it was an honest error " right after they get exposed for stealing , lying , and cheating .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not so "Good on MS".
Of course they apologized for not noticing the GPL code...after they got caught.Funny how corporations always say things like "it was a mis-understanding" or "it was a third party" or "it was an honest error" right after they get exposed for stealing, lying, and cheating.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093540</id>
	<title>Where's BadAnalogyGuy when you need him? Slacker.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258117920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, as far as a car analogies go, would this be like Toyota admitting that their vehicles have a malfunction in their third-party designed accelerator system and simultaneously offering a fix to it?</p><p>If so, that's pretty cool.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , as far as a car analogies go , would this be like Toyota admitting that their vehicles have a malfunction in their third-party designed accelerator system and simultaneously offering a fix to it ? If so , that 's pretty cool .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, as far as a car analogies go, would this be like Toyota admitting that their vehicles have a malfunction in their third-party designed accelerator system and simultaneously offering a fix to it?If so, that's pretty cool.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30096430</id>
	<title>Re:Give some credit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258202220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>I mean, they won't even answer allegations that they sacrifice babies at the altar.</i> <br> <br>

We're not accusing Microsoft of sacrificing babies at the altar. Actually, we don't think it does... but we can't help wondering why Microsoft hasn't denied sacrificing babies at the altar!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean , they wo n't even answer allegations that they sacrifice babies at the altar .
We 're not accusing Microsoft of sacrificing babies at the altar .
Actually , we do n't think it does... but we ca n't help wondering why Microsoft has n't denied sacrificing babies at the altar !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean, they won't even answer allegations that they sacrifice babies at the altar.
We're not accusing Microsoft of sacrificing babies at the altar.
Actually, we don't think it does... but we can't help wondering why Microsoft hasn't denied sacrificing babies at the altar!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093590</id>
	<title>...gulp</title>
	<author>binarylarry</author>
	<datestamp>1258118220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wha wha what just happened?</p><p>Someone hold me, I'm scared.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wha wha what just happened ? Someone hold me , I 'm scared .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wha wha what just happened?Someone hold me, I'm scared.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093908</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, so it's ok then</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258120800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What if it WAS a mistake?  What if Microsoft didn't check the code/programmer claimed it wasn't GPL/whatever?</p><p>Because if it was a mistake, they appeared to have been doing the right thing.  Furthermore, they weren't even selling this, nor was anyone else.  If anything, it was a <i>violation of GPL</i> not copyright stuff.</p><p>I had no idea GPL people were so like the RIAA that they would want to "crucify" a company for possibly accidentally using (stealing?  slashdot will call using GPL code against GPL license [and giving the result away for free]"stealing" but slashdot won't call downloading songs/movies stealing?) open source code without releasing the resulting open source.  Sounds<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... very progressive.  Encourages people to use GPL.  "Hey, use our free software and code!  It's great!  Use it however you want!  But if you don't follow the GPL you are a horrible, horrible company, even worse than people that illegally download copyrighted materials."</p><p>I like open source and GPL and all that.  I also enjoy MS products.  And I don't like double standards.  If they knowingly took GPL code, that's bad.  I don't like "guilty until proven innocent" nor comparisons of copyright to GPL...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What if it WAS a mistake ?
What if Microsoft did n't check the code/programmer claimed it was n't GPL/whatever ? Because if it was a mistake , they appeared to have been doing the right thing .
Furthermore , they were n't even selling this , nor was anyone else .
If anything , it was a violation of GPL not copyright stuff.I had no idea GPL people were so like the RIAA that they would want to " crucify " a company for possibly accidentally using ( stealing ?
slashdot will call using GPL code against GPL license [ and giving the result away for free ] " stealing " but slashdot wo n't call downloading songs/movies stealing ?
) open source code without releasing the resulting open source .
Sounds ... very progressive .
Encourages people to use GPL .
" Hey , use our free software and code !
It 's great !
Use it however you want !
But if you do n't follow the GPL you are a horrible , horrible company , even worse than people that illegally download copyrighted materials .
" I like open source and GPL and all that .
I also enjoy MS products .
And I do n't like double standards .
If they knowingly took GPL code , that 's bad .
I do n't like " guilty until proven innocent " nor comparisons of copyright to GPL.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What if it WAS a mistake?
What if Microsoft didn't check the code/programmer claimed it wasn't GPL/whatever?Because if it was a mistake, they appeared to have been doing the right thing.
Furthermore, they weren't even selling this, nor was anyone else.
If anything, it was a violation of GPL not copyright stuff.I had no idea GPL people were so like the RIAA that they would want to "crucify" a company for possibly accidentally using (stealing?
slashdot will call using GPL code against GPL license [and giving the result away for free]"stealing" but slashdot won't call downloading songs/movies stealing?
) open source code without releasing the resulting open source.
Sounds ... very progressive.
Encourages people to use GPL.
"Hey, use our free software and code!
It's great!
Use it however you want!
But if you don't follow the GPL you are a horrible, horrible company, even worse than people that illegally download copyrighted materials.
"I like open source and GPL and all that.
I also enjoy MS products.
And I don't like double standards.
If they knowingly took GPL code, that's bad.
I don't like "guilty until proven innocent" nor comparisons of copyright to GPL...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093530</id>
	<title>A setup?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258117860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Would it shock me to learn that MS specifically instructed the "third party" to insert GPL'ed code into the program, with the express intent to be "caught" and present an image of a company that made an honest mistake and wants to put everything right, to improve their public image?  No it would not.</p><p>I'm not paranoid.  I'm cynical.</p><p>(captcha: Corrupt)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would it shock me to learn that MS specifically instructed the " third party " to insert GPL'ed code into the program , with the express intent to be " caught " and present an image of a company that made an honest mistake and wants to put everything right , to improve their public image ?
No it would not.I 'm not paranoid .
I 'm cynical .
( captcha : Corrupt )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would it shock me to learn that MS specifically instructed the "third party" to insert GPL'ed code into the program, with the express intent to be "caught" and present an image of a company that made an honest mistake and wants to put everything right, to improve their public image?
No it would not.I'm not paranoid.
I'm cynical.
(captcha: Corrupt)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30094248</id>
	<title>Re:Implications</title>
	<author>Dumnezeu</author>
	<datestamp>1258123800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And this really serves their purpose if they are trying to scare people away from the GPL. "Microsoft forced to give up <b>someone else's</b> source code <b>on the author's demand</b>."</p></div><p>Emphasis text mine, too bad non-technical people will never see it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And this really serves their purpose if they are trying to scare people away from the GPL .
" Microsoft forced to give up someone else 's source code on the author 's demand .
" Emphasis text mine , too bad non-technical people will never see it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And this really serves their purpose if they are trying to scare people away from the GPL.
"Microsoft forced to give up someone else's source code on the author's demand.
"Emphasis text mine, too bad non-technical people will never see it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093582</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_2311232_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30095958
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_2311232_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30094780
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_2311232_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30094042
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_2311232_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30094526
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_2311232_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30094254
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_2311232_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30096208
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_2311232_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093852
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_2311232_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30096236
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_2311232_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30095182
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_2311232_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30094306
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_2311232_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30094750
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_2311232_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093820
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_2311232_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30094046
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_2311232_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30094212
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_2311232_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30094246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30126604
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_2311232_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30096396
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_2311232_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30094702
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_2311232_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30099638
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_2311232_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30094164
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_2311232_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30094246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30096960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_2311232_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30095478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_2311232_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30094410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_2311232_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30094676
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_2311232_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30095766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_2311232_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30094292
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_2311232_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30114294
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_2311232_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30096430
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_2311232_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30095076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_2311232_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093946
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30103692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_2311232_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30094950
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_2311232_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30094824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_2311232_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30094790
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_2311232_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093508
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093762
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_2311232_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30095714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30097752
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_2311232_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30102022
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_2311232_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30097848
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_2311232_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30102202
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_2311232_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093854
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_2311232_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30094248
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_2311232_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30094246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30094910
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_2311232_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30095788
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_2311232_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30095374
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_2311232_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093646
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_2311232_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30094246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30096288
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_2311232_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30097782
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_2311232_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30095520
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_2311232_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093508
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093706
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_2311232_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093832
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_2311232_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093512
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093814
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_2311232_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30094168
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_2311232_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30094246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30097624
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_2311232_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30100988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_2311232_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30096064
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_2311232_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30094544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30095668
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_2311232_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30098936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_2311232_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30096378
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_2311232_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093898
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_2311232_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30094510
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_13_2311232.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30095466
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_13_2311232.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093770
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30094950
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093852
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093908
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30094164
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30102202
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30094526
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30094168
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30094254
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30096236
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30094790
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30100988
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30099638
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093820
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093854
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30094046
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093942
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30095958
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_13_2311232.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30094220
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_13_2311232.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093946
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30103692
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_13_2311232.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093806
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_13_2311232.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30094472
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_13_2311232.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30094324
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_13_2311232.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093472
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30097848
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30094212
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30094510
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093858
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30094544
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30095668
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30095374
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30095520
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30096064
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30094702
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30095182
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30095766
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30094750
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30098936
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30095076
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30114294
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30096378
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_13_2311232.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093484
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_13_2311232.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093474
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30095478
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093646
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_13_2311232.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093512
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093814
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_13_2311232.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093594
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093832
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30094042
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093898
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_13_2311232.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30094044
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_13_2311232.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093540
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_13_2311232.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30095714
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30097752
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_13_2311232.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093508
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093706
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093762
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_13_2311232.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30094160
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_13_2311232.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093582
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30097782
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30094248
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30094780
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30094306
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30096396
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_13_2311232.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093534
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30096208
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_13_2311232.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093452
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093564
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30102022
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30094246
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30096288
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30126604
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30096960
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30094910
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30097624
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_13_2311232.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093532
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093714
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30096430
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30094292
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30094824
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30094676
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30095788
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30094410
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_13_2311232.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_2311232.30093530
</commentlist>
</conversation>
